Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Merge from Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous

I saw that Zambelo did the initial merge from Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. Thank you!

I have further integrated that material into the article, combining with what was already here regarding the DMCA, and attempted to avoid undue weight while keeping the crux in place. There is probably more to do in refining the citation and language, including possibly integrating this completely with the rest of the review/criticism section. Tgeairn (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I had to revert your multiple edits. While some were constructive, others were not, and need to be discussed here before they are made. Making multiple small edits in succession without referring to the consensus over at the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article isn't constructive editing - for one it makes it impossible to revert any given edit: which is why I've had to revert the lot. Please consider discussing, gaining consensus for your changes, and then making them in future. Zambelo; talk 01:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know what was done and what was reverted, but this material was far from clean. It was clearly written by someone who didn't read French very well; in addition, what valid material there was in the sources was hardly mined for gold. I removed the redlinks and unlinks from the list of participants: this is in keeping with Wikipedia's conventions all over the place. And now it's more cleanup: missing wikilinks, incorrect italicization and capitalization, quotes that probably fall foul of fair use guidelines, incomplete citation templates, etc. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well I do apologize for the atrocious formatting. If you recall, I was in a hurry to find references to save the article from deletion. The sources could probably be used further to improve and build upon the content. Zambelo; talk 03:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• No apology necessary, but I've spent thousands of edits on Wikipedia on such cleanup, so pardon me if I get a little irritated at it sometimes. "Cite web" instead of "cite news", that's a pet peeve, and websites cited for the source when we have complete names and wikilinks. The first casualty of an edit war is always the formatting... Drmies (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I was using a browser plugin that only allowed for that kind of source, and I figured it would be easy enough to change down the line if the edits stuck. I'm also slightly OCD about these things, so I probably would have gone through and cleaned up if you hadn't (and thank you) - Zambelo; talk 03:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• The quantity of material on this is completely out of proportion and violates WP:UNDUE. All the editors who suggested in the deletion debate that it be moved here suggested "a sentence or two". This is currently much longer than any other section in the article. DaveApter (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Stop misrepresenting the discussion there. There were, quite literally, no recommendations to merge only "a sentence or two" as you claim. It is completely unhelpful for you to make false and misleading statements regarding that discussion. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• It appears that this section is getting out of hand. I do not think that the intention of those contributing at the AfD were suggesting that the majority of the content be moved here. The section on this video is now over a third of the total byte size of the article - including having brought over the questionable sourcing and synth. Editors above have reverted and reinserted material into the article that duplicates other parts of the article (why would someone revert my edits to combine the two separate parts of the article that talk about the exact same DMCA actions in almost exactly the same language??). It does not work at all to blindly revert other editors without even reading what you are reverting to.

I recommend that someone take a thorough look through this and find a way to get it to a neutral paragraph that is well sourced. I had it close at one time (see this version), but it was blindly reverted without regard for duplication and other errors. Now we have three paragraphs to say that Landmark went for a subpoena, the EFF stepped into oppose it, and Landmark apparently withdrew it. That's a lot of coverage for a subpoena about a video that went nowhere, and it's partially covered again in the Litigation section of the article.

Regarding the !votes for merge, there were NONE: the nominator Drmies suggested that maybe something useful could be merged to Landmark Education litigation and said "What content is to be merged, though, needs rigorous secondary sourcing: I notice with some trepidation and dismay that the litigation has, at best, 3 1/2 secondary sources--the rest is all primary material and various website.", Cwobeel !voted Delete and said to merge what was useful to here (again, I don't think he meant to make a third of this article about the tv show), and Begoon !voted Delete and said to merge any worthwhile content here. None of these were Merge !votes. The consensus at that AfD was pretty clear, and Black Kite's closing statement doesn't say to move the bulk of this here - it says that the article (tv programme) should be referenced in the parent article, which seems to me consistent with a paragraph or so at most (not this wall of poorly sourced synthesis).

Obviously we need to get outside eyes on this, as the reversions and blind cut/paste editing styles are overwhelming those of us who spend the time to thoughtfully articulate ideas in a neutral and well-sourced manner consistent with the policies and guidelines of the project. Tgeairn (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged, I'll clarify. When I !voted "Delete...merge any worthwhile content here", I meant exactly that. It certainly was not my intention that the content from that article be inserted en masse, overwhelming this article. The suggestion of a well-worded and carefully sourced paragraph above was what I had in mind as the outcome of that, really. Looking at what is there now - to me, that's too much. Maybe around a third of that would seem balanced. The suggested version [1] does, indeed seem fairly close to the level of merge I anticipated. Begoon ^talk 01:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I did some cutting, and I have a very solid rationale: WP:RS. Nothing that I cut was reliably sourced. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an improvement. Does it need a subheading, bearing in mind there are no other subsections at that level to distinguish it from? Begoon ^talk 01:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, Begoon. Probably not! And what's funny, by the way, and the Voyage keepers should like it: what was synthesis in the Voyage article and thus wholly inappropriate, that Landmark packed up and left France, is now perfectly alright since it concerns the main subject, Landmark. Yes, that subheading should go--or, really, if the subheading is kept, the statement that Landmark left France should be cut since one cannot explicitly connect it to the documentary. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the subhead. I think this bit, and the "leaving France" portion flow ok now, but if someone wants to tweak it, that's cool. Begoon ^talk 02:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• While I spoke out above against the wrong characterization DaveApter made about "a sentence or two" being the result of the AFD, I also have to say that I concur with those above who note that the cut-and-paste of basically the entire article was also not the result of the AFD. The close (a tough one, IMO, but fairly made by BK) was to merge any useful content--not the entire article, or nearly the entire article. I think either one or two paragraphs can adequately summarize the film, and the effects it has had in the years since. Perhaps one short graf about the content of the film, and one about the legal issues that stemmed from it would be about right, in my opinion. LHM^{ask me a question} 07:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As I noted above, merging it in here actually provides the opportunity for a better chronology. "A sentence or two", yeah, that's a bit brief; two paragraphs is certainly reasonable. The lawsuits and all that, by the way, were cut because of sourcing problems, not because they can't be in or something like that. The moment there is reliably truly secondary sourcing, they can be mentioned (briefly, I suppose). Frankly I was surprised at how poor the sourcing/coverage was, as if time stood still and no verdicts or settlements ever came out of it. I wonder if Google Books has something to offer, and maybe I'll have a look later. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've restored the section about the publicised court battles. This is relevant, and well-sourced. Zambelo; talk 09:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• And I've reverted that (and the re-addition of the article tags). Please see the above discussion. Also note that the "court battles" (which none of the sources would call what happened a "court battle") duplicate material in the existing Litigation section of the article (and the Landmark Education litigation article, but that's not so relevant here). --Tgeairn (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly, this is being discussed. Please wait for consensus. Duplicate content does need trimming, but does deserve at least a mention in the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous section. Zambelo; talk 22:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  I did some reworking here, and I think I've removed all the duplicate portions. I also reorganized the sections a bit, and removed the COI tag, since DaveApter has said he won't be editing the article for now. I also re-dated the NPOV tag, to reflect that it is Zambelo's concern, and not my own, as I do not currently agree that the article doesn't reflect a neutral POV. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity I do not have any conflict of interest in respect of Landmark (although I am accused of such with tedious regularity, mostly by people who edit with a clear anti-Landmark slant), nor by any standards am I a 'frequent contributor' to the article - I have made under 20 edits to it in the past year and under 30 in the past 3 years; around 6% of the total number of edits to the page). DaveApter (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Equally for the sake of clarity, it was Drmies that placed the COI tag. And that you call those who challenged the puffery originally in the article "people who edit with a clear anti-Landmark slant" confirms that fact. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed the material to be more in line with the length of coverage given by Drmies and Begoon. In fact, it could probably be reduced to a single paragraph as per Randykitty's suggestion at the afd. The EFF stuff was confusing and repetitive, and the long quote from the volunteer at an anti-cult group seemed out of place. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I support removing the long quote, but not your removal of "the EFF stuff." Additionally, reducing it o "a single paragraph" would not be preferable, as it's too complex for such a summary. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This still seems like an excessive amount of coverage of a minor issue. DaveApter (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I am unsurprised that you feel that adequately covering a less-than-flattering episode in Landmark's history "seems like an excessive amount of coverage of a minor issue." That's been the problem with your editing this article all along. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have condensed and reworded the merge somewhat, moving from three paragraphs to two. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Landmark's community efforts

I've deleted a paragraph apparently intended to sing the praises of the organization's advocacy: at best, the newspaper reports were feelgood stories that mentioned that someone got the idea for some supposed good deed from attending a Landmark session. Such reports cannot prove the general statement that Landmark promotes this and that, and they certainly cannot support the suggestion of communityfriendliness and all that. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to say how delighted I am that at long last some genuinely uninvolved editors have stepped in to clean up this mess. The article still has way to go, but I'd say the current version (Revision as of 02:03, 30 September) is the best it's ever been so far.
• I'd also like to give a bit of historical perspective for those coming newly to this topic. Originally the article as created was a blatant advocacy piece by anti-Landmark propagandists, as you can see from this version from 2004: [[2]], shortly before I began editing here.
• Also a clarification regarding the history of the “Reviews and Criticisms” section – originally it was headed something like “Criticisms and controversies”, and was completely stuffed with anti-landmark opinions. The more positive quotes that had been added over the years were not intended (by me anyway) to turn it into a pro-Landmark advocacy page, but rather to provide some balance by giving a range of the various opinions on the subject. But I'd always felt that the whole thing was unsatisfactory an I welcome the improvements made by Drmies and Begoon in this latest crop of edits.
• Finally I request that some of the uninvolved editors take a look at the vexed question of “Religious characteristics”. Personally I don't think that this should be in the article at all. From my own attempts to wade through the welter of refs that Astynax has provided, none of them appear to have made any detailed specific study of Landmark (or even of est, which is what most of them were talking about), or even to have discussed it at any length, or delivered a considered judgement. All that they did was make some passing mention of it. Even if it does merit some mention in the article, it certainly doesn't call for a paragraph in the lead – as I argued above. Yet Astynax immediately reverted that removal without any attempt to answer my points.
• Personally I'm stepping back now from editing the article itself for a couple of weeks at least and leave it to others, but I'll probably have more to say in the debate here. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, Dave, I don't see much of a problem with the "Religious characteristics" section, or its mention in the lead. The section itself seems well balanced. Many of the sources are summarised above, in the "in summary" section ^(permalink), and it certainly seems significant enough, indeed necessary, to cover in the article, if we are to achieve balance. 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. This certainly should not be a hit-piece, nor, equally, should it omit relevant, well sourced "criticism" or academic views on the topic. Begoon ^talk 10:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

When you look in detail at those refs, you will find that they do not actually claim any detailed research or observation of est, let alone Landmark. DaveApter (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Dave, thanks for your comments; I appreciate it. I'm mostly with Begoon, I think--and I think that it's maybe time to pull the POV tag. As far as I'm concerned, the COI tag can go too--but maybe it's a good idea to ask a truly uninvolved person (not just uninvolved with Landmarks or NRMs or cults or anticults, but uninvolved with these articles) to judge that. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nah - bugger that. You can't get more uninvolved than me, except by making 0 edits - I've made 1. I looked at the tags earlier, and thought they could go now. I'm removing them. I don't think they're necessary now. Begoon ^talk 18:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As the person who initially placed the POV tag, I agree with removing it as well. While still far from perfect, it is a much more balanced article now than it was when I first placed that tag. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The article still needs work, though much of the puffery has been removed. Some things are still contribute to the impression of a whitewash (such as the bit about stock ownership, a murky business when talking about a privately held company, since ownership in these types of setups typically cannot be transferred, usually expires when employment ends, does not say anything about who controls the company, etc.). More pressing is that there is much material in reliable psychology and sociology sources that has been excluded and which should be restored or added. • Astynax ^talk 23:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Would the stock ownership be better served with an independent source (other than the company itself)? Given a privately held company, it may not be possible to definitively source it elsewhere though. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"Religious characteristics"

Well it's great to see some measure of agreement here, and I'm sorry to spoil the party by saying that I'm still unconvinced about the 'Religious' categorisation. I've been thinking about this all day on and off since I read Begoon's comment this morning. It certainly gave me pause for thought as s/he's clearly both fair and unbiased. I had another read of the RfC from a year ago at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_2#Rfc_regarding_Landmark_Worldwide and a very careful look through the extracts from the sources in the section above. Other editors studied the full works in much more detail during the debate last year and may have more to say than I can. I'm not objecting to it on the grounds that it's a "criticism", but on the grounds that it is factually inaccurate. This is a personal development training company that every month serves thousands of customers who are from every religious background on the planet, as well as atheists, agnostics and humanists. This would hardly be likely if it were a religious movement of any type, in any sense of the word that a normal English speaker would understand it. Such an extraordinary claim would require really solid sources and IMHO these are nowhere near convincing:

• Not a single one of them refers to any research or cites any primary sources, so it's dubious whether they even qualify as secondary sources at all.
• They don't even give any criteria for selecting the organisations they have listed, or even describe any research or investigations into Landmark they have carried out themselves.
• Several of them make sweeping generalisations or dubious factual assertions (including in two cases getting the name of the corporation wrong!).
• In some cases they seem to be attributing beliefs and judgements to some unnamed consensus, without saying who holds these views or how they assessed them.

I'd appreciate it if you took a closer look and see whether you still find the assessment compelling. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Landmark has also been studied as a New Religious Movement, or as "New Age" and has been referred to as a "cult" - and not to forget - Werner Erhard was influenced by Hinduism. Zambelo; talk 14:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In his period of intensive self-education in his late 20's and early 30's, Erhard studied an enormous range of philosophies, both Eastern and Western. There is no indication in the biography that Hinduism was particularly prominent, or that it significantly "influenced" him. DaveApter (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the name of the reviews and criticism section to 'Public Reception', which seems more standard and inclusive than the previous name. I've also moved the religion commentary into this section. The religion material doesnt seem to merit its own section in the article. The claim that a seminar company is a religion doesn't seem much in evidence in the dozens of firsthand accounts of the course we have from reliable secondary sources (you would think the New York Times or Time Magazine or any other press account would probably mention it if a course were religious). While it does make it on some scholarly lists of NRM's, most without explanation, as I have noted before, scholarly NRM lists often use vague, broad inclusive criteria that don't even require any overtly religious elements (Chryssides, perhaps the leading scholar in the field, both puts Landmark on an NRM list while at the same time noting the lack of overtly religious elements in the programs). This makes these religion claims an interesting footnote, but again, not something worthy of its own article section. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's sourced reliably, and pretending otherwise is counterproductive. The fact that people who have had good experiences with Landmark defend them is unsurprising, but does not make the fact that others have had different experiences, and view LW as having some religious characteristics, a moot point. Let's not open up this can of worms again. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's missing the point to talk about people "defending" Landmark in this context - saying that it has religious characteristics is simply false, not a "criticism" to be defended. It does the readers a disservice to have such a flagrantly misleading statement in the article, and especially when it is given such prominence. And it is damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia to be baldly stating something that many readers will know to be untrue. As I very clearly pointed out above, the sources simply do not justify the statements in the article. Not a single one of these refs points to any research (either their own or anyone else's) to establish the absurd conclusion that Landmark is religious - or even that it is a "movement", which it is not either. All that any of them do is give it a casual passing mention.

The statement "Landmark and many of the company's customers deny such characterizations," is particularly problematic. Firstly the use of the word "deny" violates WP:SAY, and secondly it is actually false. It simply is not the case that 'many of the customers deny...'. They simply do not discuss it because the question does not arise, and they would be somewhat baffled if it did. DaveApter (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please respond to the actual argument made above, rather than simply reverting a change based on an assumption of bias. No one is denying that a few sources put Landmark on an NRM list - that was never in dispute. What is under consideration is how much weight that holds in giving this material its own section in the article, given the above points regarding the lack of religious characteristics mentioned in the countless firsthand accounts we have, and given that the scholarly definition of NRMs being used by most of these sources doesn't actually require overtly religious characteristics. I invite reading Chryssides' comments on Landmark to get a better sense of this. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I did respond "to the actual argument." The first-hand accounts of participants that found their Landmark experience useful and rewarding should be given no more weight than the first-hand accounts of those whose experience was different, as well as the researchers who have noted "religious characteristics" of the program. There is significant debate on the matter, and removing the section head that identifies where this article discusses that fact simply confuses the issue, rather than clarifying anything. (Note: The section is not titled "Overt religious characteristics", so you point about NRM researchers not requiring that is moot.) LHM^{ask me a question} 15:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Where is this significant debate that you are referring to? I have never met anyone (customer or non-customer, admirer or critic of Landmark) who is debating whether it is in any sense religious. Nor have I seen any reference to such a debate in any of the numerous newspaper or magazine articles on the company. DaveApter (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because you refuse to acknowledge that there are serious people who have discussed Landmark's religious characteristics doesn't mean it hasn't happened. And no, I'm not going to make a list of them, and rehash what Astynax has outlined clearly elsewhere. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The persistent mischaracterization of Landmark/est being discussed as a religion by only a "few" scholars is simply a false premise. It is actually strange to repeatedly cite Chryssides as support for Landmark not being religious in nature. While Chryssides himself does not regard Landmark as a full-fledged religion (though he admits that it has religious elements and has engaged in promoting religion), only 2 pages prior to the page linked, Chryssides states that Landmark is regarded as a new religion by both other academics and anti-cult authors. Cherry-picking Chryssides to support an OR position is mind-boggling. • Astynax ^talk 18:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"...is regarded as a new religion" by whom specifically? And on the basis of what research? And where published? And by whom peer reviewed? Without that, this remark is just a case of Somebody says.... DaveApter (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Incredible! Now you are disputing the exact reliable source you cited as an example of a scholar who doesn't class Landmark as a full-fledged religion, just because he also states that there are other academic books that do class it as a new religion. • Astynax ^talk 17:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I am bewildered by some of the responses here. No one seems to be responding to the discussion of undue weight regarding it having its own section. There is no differentiation between eyewitnesses who 'liked' Landmark and those who didn't - none of the reliably sourced eyewitness press accounts (of which we have dozens), regardless of whether they 'liked' Landmark or not, seem to indicate any religious elements whatsoever. I also fail to see how discussing the specific remarks of a top scholar in the field constitutes 'original research' - I have simply noted how this scholar notes the lack of overt religious elements in Landmark's programs, saying study of them is "useful" (his word) regardless of whether they can be fully considered religions. Given this qualification, and given that the researchers who put Landmark on an NRM list generally use a definition of NRMs that doesn't actually require overt religious elements to qualify as an NRM, it's fair to question whether this material is worthy of its own section in the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is a vast difference between "overt religious elements" and "religious characteristics." There can exist "religious characteristics" without having "overt religious elements." And there's just no doubt that a debate does exist regarding what some call "religious characteristics" of the Landmark system. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Splitting hairs between 'religious characteristics' and 'overt religious characteristics' seems like sophistry to me. DaveApter (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, DaveApter, it's called being precise with one's language. You should try it. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• As noted by Nwlaw63, there doesn't appear to be much discussion here regarding the possible WP:UNDUE weight of a separate section for this. The mainstream sources don't discuss this as a religion, and there is a dearth of modern reliable academic sources - particularly any that claim to have examined the company in any depth. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed decision template

The purpose of adding a template to a page is to provide information to the reader. The template which was added to this article provides, in its current state, no discernible information. That may of course change when there is a decision, but considering that the decision will be about conduct of editors regarding this article, and honestly says nothing whatsoever about the article itself, I tend to think that even when there is a decision there would be no particular purpose in adding the template to the article page. I have seen several such templates added to article talk pages indicating some of the ArbCom decisions specifically relating to content issues, but I at this point have no particular reason to believe that this decision will necessarily include any such statements. I think it would make much more sense to indicate on this, the article talk page, any information regarding the decision. Also, honestly, as I think pretty much everyone who has ever been regularly involved in this article is already aware of the ArbCom case, I think it unlikely that most people who would likely be interested in it doesn't already have the pages watched. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Case closed

The case was closed on 29th December. Nobody was found guilty of bad behaviour and nobody was sanctioned. You can read the summary of the decision here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide#Final_decision

The whole discussion and voting process is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide/Proposed_decision

In summary, the key points are:

1) Whereas Astynax brought the case with accusations against Nwlaw63, Tgeairn and myself, all of these were rejected decisively.

a) The drafting arbitrators did not find evidence sufficient to propose either a finding of fact regarding me, or any proposed sanction

b) They did draft a finding that Nwlaw63 and Tgeairn were Single Purpose Accounts, and propose that they be topic-banned for six months, but the findings were voted down 2-8, and the topic bans rejected by 2 votes to 6.

2) They did draft a finding that Astynax was guilty of Tendentious Editing, and propose a topic ban of six months. The decision on these was very close and hung in the balance until the last vote, but neither passed. The voting on the finding was 5-5, and on the ban was 4-5 with one abstention.

3) There was a finding that "rigorous academic sources for the topic are few and far between, meaning claims more often rest on weaker sources or claims from the organization in question." This passed by 6 votes to 2.

4)The proposal that "The Arbitration Committee urges that editors having no prior editing history on Landmark Worldwide and no strong views on the underlying controversy review and edit this article, helping to ensure that our policies governing neutral point of view and reliable sources are followed." was passed by 7 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions. DaveApter (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

To move forward?

Now that the Arbitration case is closed, any suggestions for the best way to move forward in improving the article? Or for encouraging uninvolved editors to contribute here as the Arbitrators suggested? DaveApter (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a previously uninvolved editor now watching the page as a result of the Arbitration. My real life involvement with Landmark has been limited to attending one meeting some years ago they held in a home. After that I did a little reading on them. The article needs a cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - would you like to say a little more about the sort of things that the "needed cleanup" would involve? DaveApter (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps avoiding 'bundled' edits in light of "Parties to the case are reminded to base their arguments in reliable, independent sources and to discuss changes rather than revert on sight."[3] 'Bundled' being multiple changes under one edit. If changes are made individually it makes them easier to discuss and agree on as opposed to a contentious edit in amongst a group of otherwise generally agreed ones. Make exactly the same edits you feel are fair but make them one by one. Just a courtesy suggestion 'to move forward'. AnonNep (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a really good suggestion. The battling over this article in September and October kicked off with this bundled edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=624044865&oldid=624040771 , and was aggravated by this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=627007814&oldid=626534795 . I think further cleanup is required on the remnants of both of these. DaveApter (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

While, I see only content stating it is not a cult, yet there are longstanding allegations that Landmark is a cult. Where is the balance in those opinions? See Cult Awareness Network for example. What is its connection to Scientology? No discussion of that. For a group that is so controversial the article seems to contain mainly positive and defensive info. I'll need to do some additional research befor proposing any specific changes. Legacypac (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• While it is true that there have indeed, been allegations that Landmark is a cult, there is currently no mention in the article because - despite the best efforts of those who have repeatedly inserted such claims, no reliable references have been produced for identifiable authoritative individuals who are on record as having made such judgements. As has been discussed ad nauseam on the 29 archives of this talk page, the suggestion is ridiculous and Landmark exhibits none of the characteristics of being a cult. Attempts to trace back these allegations usually arrive sooner or later at anonymous postings on chatrooms, blogs and unmoderated anti-cult websites etc. Mostly by people who have no direct personal experience of the organisation.
• Re the "connection to Scientology" - that's easy: there is none whatsoever. What had you think there might be one? DaveApter (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• There are certain definite similarities between Scientology and Landmark, in that both have been counted as for-profit entities in the broad field of NRMs, and the fact that they both had some sort of prominence in the early days of the anti-cult movement as "cults" of a sort, but there is no direct linkage between the two entities or ideas other than perhaps being in somewhat the same area of "self-improvement" through involvement in for-profit groups. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest we maybe try to do what I indicated in the arb, specifically, get some people who have perhaps some good, proven, experience with wikipedia policies and guidelines and, possibly, some basic familiarity with topics of this nature involved. I also think it would be a very good idea if we discussed merging this article into the articles on the other iterations of est, although the major problem there would be determining which title to merge the content into. I've had some computer problems for the past week, and have also, honestly, been taking some time off in general, but have a basic idea as to at least some good editors who might be capable and with luck willing to spend some time with the content here. Give me a few days to finish thinking it through, and contacting those individuals to see if they really are interested. Of course, I want it understood that anyone else, not just those I have been thinking of, who has some interest in helping to develop the content, is more than welcome, including Legacypac above. I'm also going to over the next few days try to find any recent reference sources which deal with the topic of Landmark and its predecessors in any sort of specific way, and indicate what they say. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My observation is that Landmark and Scientology are often discussed together and seem to steam from the same technology. I'l look through the archives. The article currently contains a few sentences saying they are not a cult but no sentences quoting anyone to say they are a cult. That is just weird. Obviously there have been accusations of cult status or there would would not be the denials, but the article only presents the denials. It would be equally inappropriate to only list the accusations without the denials. Legacypac (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that it is weird to include the denials but not the accusations; this is a side-effect of the battling over the balance of the article. I think that both should come out. Part of the problem is that clearly both the accusation and the denial are in the realm of opinion rather than fact, and it has seemed virtually impossible to estimate numbers of either persuasion. DaveApter (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is based on the existing group of articles about the group Werner Erhard formed. I know of several books which called Erhard Seminars Training a NRM/cult, but Landmark has seemingly gone out of its way to try to distance itself from that prior group. The fact of there being at least three separate articles relating to the group Erhard founded, and the content relating to those closely similar topics broken up into those three articles, is I think one of the most problematic aspects here. It's one of the reasons I suggested a merge discussion earlier. I still intend to start such a discussion, but am not sure at this point whether it would be best to start activity with that, or to maybe first try to involve other previously uninvolved editors first, and then later have them all involved in a potential merge discussion. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy provides guidance on dealing with controversial subjects. Yes it is all Opinions so the article should reflect the Fact that many people have the Opinion that the group is a cult and the Fact that the group (and supporters) denies it is a cult. WP:NPOV Appropriate weight needs to be given to both sides. The article is always going to give most of its space to describing the group as they describe themselves, so that tips the balance toward Landmark already. It is not remarkable at all that Landmark denies being a religion or a cult, its fully expected, so that just needs a short mention and some refs. What is significant is that many people call Landmark a cult, but no one calls businesses like University of Phoenix (to name just one private provider of education) a cult. So there needs to be a Criticism section detailing this. Using quotes helps maintain Wikipedia's NPOV. Rather than saying "Landmark is a cult.[1][2] we say "John Smith, the author of Cults Today wrote "blah blah blah"[1] while Mary Jones, a professor of religious studies at Harvard wrote ...." see WP:YESPOV Sound ok? Legacypac (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite claims to the contrary, there are extremely reliable sources that use the term 'cult' (however useless that term may be) in referring to Landmark, as well as its connections to Scientology. I have noted some of those previously (in the to-do list in the header at the top of this page and during the arbcom case). Make use of them if you wish:

• "Although est and the Forum are frequently characterized as NRMs or 'cults' (q.v.), leaders and participants have typically denied that undergoing the seminars involves following a religion" —George D. Chryssides (2006). The A to Z of New Religious Movements. Scarecrow Press. p. 121. ISBN 0810855887.
• "There has been an enormous growth of the phenomenon known as Large Group Awareness Training represented by such companies as Landmark Forum. Its former iteration was EST, begun by the famous and infamous Werner Erhard. He retired it in 1985 and started The Forum. One of several cults categorized as examples of the human potential movement that started in the 1970s, it focused on exploring and actualizing the self. It has gained great traction in recent decades with professionals working within highly demanding occupations—entrepreneurs, business managers, the fields of acting, advertising, and marketing. EST and The Landmark Forum have had over a million customers." —Atkin, Douglas (2004). "What Is Required of a Belief System?". The Culting of Brands: Turn Your Customers Into True Believers. New York: Penguin/Portfolio. p. 101. ISBN 9781591840275.
• "In the Landmark Forum, the essential aspects of est live on in a modified form. It no longer makes such a virtue of aggressive confrontation. With the founding 'genius' out of the picture, Landmark is less open to the charge of being a cult, though it continues to attract criticism along these lines." —Wildflower, Leni (2013). The Hidden History of Coaching. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press. p. 34. ISBN 9780335245406.
• "Erhard's early involvement with Scientology profoundly influenced the development of est and years later, the Landmark Forum."
  "Its standard introductory course is known today as The Landmark Forum (Pressman 1993). By the mid 1990s Landmark was among 200 groups listed in France as having cult-like features and having been accused of brainwashing. In 2004 reporters hiding secret cameras infiltrated the Landmark, following a scathing expose on France's Channel 3 TV, after which the government put it on a list of dangerous sects (ABC NEWS 2008). Landmark Education apparently left France permanently."
  "Years ago recruitment for cultic groups was far more obvious than today because extreme religious groups were easy to identify. They lived isolated from the general population, and the public had become aware of their deceptive recruiting techniques. Today many are attracted to organizations that are less overtly cultic, not overtly religious, and are often linked with the human potential movement, while others operate as businesses, with their tactics focused around financial success. Landmark Forum, for example, is a human potential/business hybrid." —Farber, Sharon Klayman (2012). Hungry for Ecstasy: Trauma, the Brain, and the Influence of the Sixties. Lanham, Maryland: Jason Aronson/Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 131, 134, 139. ISBN 9780765708588.
• "Schneider (1995:189–190) lists organizations, such as Landmark Education, Verein zur Förderung der Psychologischen Menschenkenntnis (VPM), Scientology/Dianetics, Ontologische Einweihungsschule (Hannes Scholl), EAP and Die Bewegung (Silo) as examples of 'therapy cults'. These groups do not immediately suggest a religious worldview, but reveal ideological and religious elements on closer inspection. Their slogans are 'We have the saving principle' or 'We enable those who are able' and they offer Lebenshilfe (advice on how to live). Such advice is a commodity which is sold in very expensive seminars. The ideologies involved often lie in the grey areas between the humanities, psychotherapies, Lebenshilfe, 'mental hygiene' (Psychohygiene), and religion." —Arweck, Elisabeth (2004). Researching New Religious Movements: Responses and Redefinitions. Leiden: Brill. pp. 145–146. ISBN 0203642376.

As you said, it's a very odd circumstance that denials are included while there are reliable sources that note the other side of the coin. • Astynax ^talk 23:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Astynax: there are reliably sources that categorize Landmark as a cult. Above and beyond: some European administrations have categorized Landmark as such: France and Austria. I also want to refer to 'Religiosity Rejected: Exploring the Religio-Spiritual Dimensions of Landmark Education', International Journal For the Study of New Religions 2.2 (2011) p.225–254. The conclusions in this peer-reviewed article, published in a "standard international publication with a good reputation among researchers of the field in different countries" are that Landmark exhibits traits that mark it as an indicator for the religious changes that take place right under our nose. FYI: I did some edits to Landmark Worldwide at the Dutch Wikipedia and I have done some contributions to its talkpage as well, but I have no COI: I never had any involvement whatsoever - pro or contra - with Landmark or its activities. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Werner Erhard and Associates and Erhard Seminars Training

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These three articles are all, so far as I can tell, different legal entities which have all had as their primary business interest "selling" the same services. I can see no reason for them not to all be combined into the same article. On that basis, I propose that they all be merged into one article, and, although I suppose there is some grounds for discussion as to whether Erhard Seminars Training or Landmark Worldwide is the best title, I would suggest using the Landmark Worldwide title, as the current name of the entity, as the at least temporary home for the merged article. John Carter (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There is certainly a problem here. Werner Erhard and Associates is a company name, as is Landmark Worldwide. The product of Werner Erhard and Associates (from 1971-1981 called Erhard Seminars Training Inc) was from 1971 to 1984/1985 Erhard Seminars Training (est). Since 1985 est has been renamed to Landmark Forum, the main product of Werner Erhard and Associates. In 1991 Werner Erhard transfered his intellectual property to Landmark Education, which changed its name in 2013 to Landmark Worldwide. The basic training program of Landmark Worldwide is still Landmark Forum (or The Forum). So there are different company names and different, but closely related, training programs. Erhard himself, the originator (i.e. compilator) of the training methodology (the origins are to be found in Scientology and the works of José Silva), has also an irresistable leaning to change names as soon as publicity is not exactly what he wants it to be: John Paul Rosenberg, Jack Rosenberg, Werner Erhard, Jack Frost, Werner Spits and Curt Wilhelm VonSavage. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support this merge and any other articles in the history. Do redirects for each name here. Use the current name as the primary title. Changing your name does not get a fresh start. ISIL has a similar love of renaming themselves and we dealt with it by putting subsections in their history section. We also need a Key persons list in the article with a mini bio and link out to their own article. Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to support the proposed merger, but there are some difficulties of which the editor who carries out the merger must be aware. The Landmark Forum (the basic course of Landmark Worldwide), has always definitely been the successor of est, although Landmark Education, the predecessor of Landmark Worldwide, has denied it for quite some time. See: Rennee Lockwood, 'Religiosity Rejected: Exploring the Religio-Spiritual Dimensions of Landmark Education', International Journal For the Study of New Religions 2.2 (2011) p.225–254, p.227: "Landmark Education today insists that the Landmark Forum is entirely distinct from est, claiming that it is not based on or a derivation of Werner Erhard’s original program." Nowadays Landmark Worldwide acknowledges its history more or less, that is to say partially: the history from 1971-1991, including the est-controversies, is left out. The paragraph on the Landmark website called "The Early Days. A small company with a bold idea" begins twenty years after what really were the early days. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe @Astynax: found sourcing indicating that Landmark had licensed the method for some time from Erhard, which, presumably, might have included having Erhard retain some sort of control over the "product" as it was used. Having said that, there is reason to think that when Erhard died they weren't bound by the licensing at all and could have made serious changes, although I have yet to see any really well sourced indications of what those changes might have been. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Erhard is still alive, as far as I know (link). Yes, the 'methodology' is reported to have been licensed (in some form unknown to me) from Erhard. There are differences between est and The Forum. The program has been modified, extended, changed, smoothed a bit. The company is blurring the historical facts. Reporters and scholars are sometimes treating both phenomena as one thing, and more often as two different appearances of the same historical Self Help-development. Erhard is not only alive, but also both omnipresent and not seldom seemingly absent. Cheers! Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support. Yes, Erhard is still alive and acts, at a minimum, as a consultant to Landmark. Erhard (not Landmark) had already developed and begun marketing the less coercive version of est (which he named "the Forum") in the mid 1980s. According to the findings in the Ney case, this was the "technology" licensed to (not purchased by, as the article and Landmark have claimed) Landmark in 1991 when Erhard folded Werner Erhard and Associates. Only the hard assets (property, contracts, equipment, etc.) were sold to Landmark. According to the decision, there was "little change" in the courses, and Landmark (consisting of Erhard's brother and most of the directors of Werner Erhard and Associates) began running the renamed "Landmark Forum" immediately upon concluding the deal. Erhard retained control of the programs in certain markets, and continued to receive royalty income from the seminars. Landmark is supposed to have eventually acquired ownership of the Forum prior to the expiry of their license in 2009 (though the only source I've seen for the claimed acquisition hang on vague statements from Landmark's marketing department). According to the court finding, Erhard thus retained a quite significant degree of involvement in Landmark, despite repeated denials from Landmark itself that he had any involvement. Nor did the Forum seminars change upon Landmark assuming the running of the Forum (other than the official name change to "Landmark Forum"), as the court decision also notes. The same offices, same client contact lists, the same staff, the same volunteers, the same methods, the same people in charge (though Erhard's name disappeared from the list of officers). That the program has developed since is not surprising, as indeed the seminars had previously also evolved under Erhard himself. It has also branched out more in the direction of marketing the seminars to institutions (a shift in emphasis which had also been initiated by Erhard prior to his departure). It has only been recently that Landmark has admitted that Erhard has continued to act as a consultant to the company, though the depth of that involvement and compensation have not yet been detailed either by reportage or publicly by Landmark. Thus, Landmark was not a clean break from est/WE&A, but a further iteration of the company. Reliable sources do depict est/WE&A as directly related to, and an integral part of the history of, Landmark. A fuller "History" section into which the Erhard Seminars Training and Werner Erhard and Associates articles are merged (including mentions of some of the other iterations) is warranted. • Astynax ^talk 08:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a searchable version of the Ney Case. The Werdegang of this specific Large Group Awareness Training-program really discloses, as any literature survey will quickly display, the chameleontic nature of the enterprise - the metamorphoses being apparently driven by considerations of marketing, self-promotion, escape from bad publicity. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

My thanks for the correction on Erhard's status - I was assuming his death led to the end of the "licensing", but apparently should have checked to confirm. It would certainly be possible to create a "history" section of the article under whatever name, and, maybe, a History of Landmark Education (if that is the final name chosen for the topic as a whole), which could discuss the previous iterations in one article. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of factual errors with Theobald's statement above. First, there were at least three separate entities (Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates, and Landmark Education (now Landmark Worldwide)), not two. Second, the est training ended in 1985 - it was not renamed into anything. Third, a program named "The Forum" was provided by WE&A until 1990 - this program was not est and it was not The Landmark Forum (which was/is a product of Landmark Worldwide). Fourth, Landmark Education (Worldwide) purchased some assets from WE & A and licensed some of WE & A's intellectual property, but it does not appear to have even been an exclusive license (see some examples at Werner_Erhard#Related_organizations). Fifth, there are a number of actual mainstream reliable sources who have clearly said that the Landmark Forum is not est and that they are completely distinct from one another. Sixth, the statement that "the origins are to be found in Scientology and the works of José Silva" had better come with a significant reliable source - I haven't seen anything even resembling a source for that statement in the year+ now that I've been following and researching this article. Given this loose interpretation of sources, Theobald's indefinite block from the Dutch Wikipedia, including their behaviour on the Landmark article at that site, is unsurprising. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC) updated to strike unrelated comments --Tgeairn (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The suggestion to merge the est article with the Landmark Worldwide article does not lead to improving wikipedia and the availability of information for readers. The entities are categorically different and should remain separate. Landmark is a seminar company currently at work and est was an historical entity that had an enormous impact the culture and times of the 1970s. The est training merits its own article so that it's particular impact and unique place in history can be chronicled and available. The est training had its own processes, history and impact separate from the work of Landmark. There are many publications and studies written solely about est that do not have anything to do with the current work of Landmark. The concepts that came out of the est training are now widespread in the culture and can be seen in a number of fields and many bodies of work including the current broad field of coaching. The est training also inspired the genesis of a great number of organizations that continue to impact people's lives, such as Youth at Risk, The Breakthrough Foundation, The Holiday Project, etc. that used its ideas and created new methods of disseminating its concepts. Many of these organizations that got created through the work of est have also had a large impact on a broad spectrum of society. These organizations have nothing to do with Landmark Worldwide. One can look at this site to see some of the diverse and wide ranging work that came through the culture and times of the est training that had a large historical impact. http://wernererhardfoundation.org MLKLewis (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"The concepts that came out of the est training are now widespread in the culture and can be seen in a number of fields and many bodies of work including the current broad field of coaching. The est training also inspired the genesis of a great number of organizations that continue to impact people's lives, such as Youth at Risk, The Breakthrough Foundation, The Holiday Project, etc." In which case we may need a new central overarching article that represents the overview of all of the divergent strands as we do for Catholicism, Scientology etc. Or it all goes into one article. I'm open to either but at present we seem to have neither. AnonNep (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The creation of one central article is pretty much the intended purpose of the proposed merge, with whichever article the content is merged into being the central article. I proposed, for simplicity, Landmark be the merger target in the short run, but if consensus opts for some other title, I'm more than willing to see a change. It will also make it easier to develop any real and possible child articles if a good and strong central article is developed. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A mere change of name or ownership is not a change of entity. As the court case states, there was almost no difference between WE&A and Landmark, even if Landmark could not be held as successor to liabilities on a technicality. As has been stated, reliable sources do treat them as iterations of the same entity in a continuum. No reliable sources of which I am aware jump to the conclusion that est and Landmark are unique and unrelated entities. WE&A, est and the other iterations are a central and innate part of Landmark's history and offerings. Corporate history is littered with buyouts of companies by their directors, none of which makes them viewed as different entities in any normal sense, clever legal technicalities notwithstanding. Due to the length of the General Motors article, we have a brief article on the technically separate old General Motors, but the history of the former General Motors and the current General Motors are treated as a single subject. Landmark is not General Motors, and at this point the est, WE&A, Landmark litigation and Landmark Worldwide articles, dealing with aspects of the same history, are not nearly long enough, by a long shot, to warrant separate articles even if merged. Even if these articles were merged without removing all the duplicate information, the article would be a mere 17.7kB in length and far short of the 50kB where creating sub-articles is even contemplated. As the previous iterations are part of Landmark's history, the natural place for the former manifestations would be an expanded history section in the Landmark article, which is how it is often presented in references. Some references do present est as the main article with Landmark mentioned toward the end, so that is also possible, though those works tend to focus on the content of the seminars and not deal with the corporation per se. • Astynax ^talk 20:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The source you provide above (the Ney court case) clearly found that est, the Forum, and Landmark are all three different entities. The Court of Appeals upheld (affirmed) that finding. At this page, and across a variety of others, a large number of sources have been shown to treat these entities as separate and distinct from one another. Courts and government agencies have consistently found that they are separate. Given all of this, what exactly is the goal here? You are completely misstating what the sources are saying, and you are disregarding mainstream sources that actually deal directly with the subject. I intend to provide a more complete oppose statement, but this is bordering on ridiculous. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Where do you see that the court found The Forum to be a separate entity in any way? The court merely upheld that because of the way the transaction was conducted (an acquisition of assets of a single-proprietorship, rather than an outright sale of the company) that Landmark was not technically a successor-company for the purposes of the plaintiff's liability claim. The court went to some length to note that in this instance the business continued operating with almost no break, in the same way, with the same product and the same people. Nor have I misstated or misrepresented what sources say:

• Grigoriadis, Vanessa (9 July 2001). "Pay Money, Be Happy". New York Magazine. New York, New York. Retrieved 10 October 2014. These days, Landmark says Erhard has no role in its business, although their courses are based on his "technology"—the structure, style, and system of beliefs he used in est and later in the Forum, which he created in 1985 when est enrollment started to dip. Landmark's Forum is shorter than est and has fewer rules (in est, attendees weren't just warned they might miss something if they went to the bathroom – they weren't allowed to go at all), but it retains some similar exercises and the same tortured relationship to grammar.
• McClure, Laura (July–August 2009). "The Landmark Forum: 42 Hours, $500, 65 Breakdowns; My lost weekend with the trademark happy, bathroom-break hating, slightly spooky inheritors of est". Mother Jones. San Francisco, California. Retrieved 8 December 2014. Part of it is the in-your-face, hard-sell ethos embedded in the corporate DNA it inherited from est.
  "Another man is called to the mic. He wants to know how Landmark is different from est. David sighs. 'If I had to sum it up, here's what I'd say: They're both about Transformation, but est was very experiential. It was the '70s, okay? Your access was an experience. Your access this weekend is going to be just through conversation. We realized we could do it just through conversation.' And that's the last we hear of that.
• Beam, Alex (6 November 1998). "A Harvard Forum For Self-Promotion?". Boston Globe. Boston Massachussets. The San Francisco-based Forum came into being when Werner Erhard (John Paul Rosenberg to his parents) sold the "technology" for Erhard Seminars Training – est – to his brother Harry. The Forum, formally known as the Landmark Education Corp., has enjoyed considerable success with the self-actualization crowd, and with the Cambridge intelligentsia.
• Rupert, Glenn A. (1992). "Employing the New Age: Training Seminars". In Lewis, James R.; Melton, J. Gordon (eds.). Perspectives on the New Age. Albany, New York: SUNY Press. p. 130. ISBN 079141213X. After Erhard dissolved est in 1984, he created two new organizations: the Forum, again targeting individuals, and Transformational Technologies Inc., created specifically to train corporate managers.
• Boulware, Jack (2000). San Francisco Bizarro. New York: Macmillan/St. Martins. p. 38. ISBN 0312206712. His [Erhard's] original company, Erhard Seminars Training (est), ended in 1984, but another incarnation of his philosophies is still based here in the city, the Landmark Education Corporation. [...]In the 1980s, est techniques were repackaged for corporate clients, and the name changed to The Forum.
• Paris, Joel (2013). Psychotherapy in an Age of Narcissism: Modernity, Science, and Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 21. ISBN 9780230336964. The EST fad passed out of the public view following revelations of Erhard's history of tax evasion, as well as his incestuous abuse of his daughters–leading the founder to move to Europe and leave the movement he founded (later called 'The Forum') to disciples.
• Koocher, Gerald P.; Keith-Spiegel, Patricia (2008). Ethics in Psychology and the Mental Health Professions: Standards and Cases. New York: Oxford University Presss. p. 151. ISBN 978-0195149111. Werner Erhard, the developer of est, was a skilled salesman with no professional training as a psychotherapist. His programs evolved to become the 'Forum' seminars and exist currently as the Landmark Education or the Forum, a genre of so-called large-group awareness programs. [...] The ability of skilled salesmen, such as Erhard, to promote and morph their programs in the face of criticism by behavioral scientists is quite impressive.
• Conway, Flo; Siegelman, Jim (1995). Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change. New York: Stillpoint. p. 17. ISBN 0964765004. In 1985, riding the waves of the eighties, Erhard changed est's name to the more businesslike handle 'The Forum' and raised the price to $525. He replaced est's boot-camp encounters and harsh training rules with more accommodating 'dialogues' and training 'requests.' But according to many customers, the new package contained essentially the same product.
• Walker, James K. (2007). The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House. pp. 137–138. ISBN 9780736920117. Est was discontinued and replaced with The Forum, and in 1991, Werner Erhard and Associates (WE&A) was dissolved. In its place, Landmark Education was incorporated, with Erhard's brother, serving as CEO and overseeing the current seminar, which is called Landmark Forum.
• Barker, Eileen (1996). "New Religions and Mental Health". In Bhugra, Dinesh (ed.). Psychiatry and Religion: Context, Consensus and Controversies. London and New York: Routledge. p. 126. ISBN 0415089557. est (erhard Seminar Training, now known as the Landmark Forum) {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Lockwood, Renee (2011). "Religiosity Rejected: Exploring the Religio-Spiritual Dimensions of Landmark Education". International Journal for the Study of New Religions. 2 (2). Sheffield, England: Equinox: 227–229. ISSN 2041-9511. Landmark Education today insists that the Landmark Forum is entirely distinct from est, claiming that it is not based on or a derivation of Werner Erhard's original program. Certainly there are profound differences between the methodologies, pedagogies and praxes of the est training and those of the contemporary Landmark Forum. However, it is argued here that there are also significant similarities, particularly in regard to the ultimate aim of the training.
• Gastil, John (2010). The Group in Society. Los Angeles: SAGE. pp. 228–229. ISBN 9781412924689. The Landmark Forum, with its roots tracing back to est, complements testimonials like these with its own statistical evidence.
• Beckford, James A. (2004). "New Religious Movements and Globalization". In Lucas, Phillip Charles; Robbins, Thomas (eds.). New Religious Movements in the 21st Century. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. p. 208. ISBN 0-415-96576-4. Werner Erhard, the founder of est (now largely reconfigured as the Landmark Trust)...
• Siegler, Elijah (2004). "Marketing Lazaris". In Lewis, James R. (ed.). The Encyclopedic Sourcebook of New Age Religions. Amherst, New York: Prometheus. p. 187. ISBN 1591020409. Exemplars of new religious movements with a gradual CDS are Scientology and Erhard Seminar Training in its various manifestations.
• Aupers, Stef (2005). "'We Are All Gods': New Age in the Netherlands 1960-2000". In Sengers, Erik (ed.). The Dutch and Their Gods: Secularization and Transformation of Religion in the Netherlands. Studies in Dutch Religious History. Vol. 3. Hilversum: Verloren. p. 193. ISBN 9065508678. In 1984 EST became known as Forum and nowadays it operates under the name Landmark.
• Ramstedt, Martin (2007). "New Age and Business: Corporations as Cultic Milieus?". In Kemp, Daren; Lewis, James R. (eds.). Handbook of the New Age. Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion. Vol. 1. Leiden: BRILL. pp. 196–197. ISBN 9789004153554. A well-known example is Landmark Education International, Inc., a management-oriented derivate of Werner Erhard's famous seminars called est (an acronym for Erhard Seminars Training) developed in the 1970s.
• Ankerberg, John; Weldon, John, eds. (1999). Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House. p. 122. ISBN 9780736900744. The change from est to The Landmark Forum had more to do with public relations and marketability than with any fundamental change in philosophy. The duplicity in how est was packaged and the many legal, financial and ethical allegations against Werner Erhard were causing a significant problem for public perception of est, not to mention its profitability.
• Kyle, Richard (1993). Religious Fringe: A History of Alternative Religions in America. Downer's Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity. p. 319. ISBN 0830817662. In 1985, Erhard changed the name of est to 'the Forum.' The Forum is not substantially different from est. Ruth Tucker says that the changes made by Erhard are largely cosmetic, for the philosophy of the Forum is essentially that of est. The seminars have been repackaged to improve their appeal to large businesses and corporations.
• Atkin, Douglas (2004). "What Is Required of a Belief System?". The Culting of Brands: Turn Your Customers Into True Believers. New York: Penguin/Portfolio. p. 101. ISBN 9781591840275. There has been an enormous growth of the phenomenon known as Large Group Awareness Training represented by such companies as Landmark Forum. Its former iteration was EST, begun by the famous and infamous Werner Erhard. He retired it in 1985 and started The Forum.
• Wildflower, Leni (2013). The Hidden History of Coaching. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press. p. 33. ISBN 9780335245406. Landmark and the rebranding of est: In the Landmark Forum, the essential aspects of est live on in a modified form.
• Salerno, Steve (5 March 2010). "Landmark Forum. In (largely) its own words. Part 2". Shamblog. Salerno. Retrieved 9 January 2015. Landmark would like to control the debate on the precise nature of its relationship with Werner Erhard and est—on the one hand crediting Erhard for his groundbreaking theories about consciousness-raising while at the same time disowning the inconvenient and troubling connotations of the est course itself.
• Farber, Sharon Klayman (2012). Hungry for Ecstasy: Trauma, the Brain, and the Influence of the Sixties. Lanham, Maryland: Jason Aronson/Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 131, 134. ISBN 9780765708588. Erhard's early involvement with Scientology profoundly influenced the development of est and years later, the Landmark Forum. [...] To understand the history of est, you need to know that Erhard changed est's name to The Forum in 1985, raised the price of the introductory groups to $525, and replaced est's tough rules and procedures to more accommodating "dialogues" and training "requests" (Pressman 1993). But according to many trainees, this was nothing more than old wine in new bottles. [...] Landmark Education LLC, a personal training and development company founded in 1991, bought Erhard's intellectual property and began offering educational programs worldwide in approximately 115 locations (Pressman 1993). Its standard introductory course is known today as The Landmark Forum (Pressman 1993).
• Eisner, Donald A. (2000). The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. p. 60. ISBN 0275964132. There are a number of est clones including Life Spring, Actualizations and Forum, which is a successor to est.
• Jaffe, Eric (15 November 2010). "A look at four psychology fads: The basics of est, primal therapy, Transcendental Meditation and lucid dreaming". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, California. Retrieved 9 September 2014. In 1991, Erhard left the country and sold his intellectual property to Landmark Education, run by his brother Harry Rosenberg. Today Landmark offers a variety of programs, chiefly the Landmark Forum, based largely on Erhard's ideas. The training has evolved — gone is the est-era combativeness of instructors — but it remains wildly popular: Tuition varies by location and costs $495 in California.
• Kaminer, Wendy (1993). I'm Disfunctional, You're Disfunctional. New York: Vintage Books/Random House. pp. 108, 109. ISBN 0-679-74585-8. If you want to experience or 'process' New Age's heady combination of pseudo-science, religion, and money, visit a session or two of The Forum, the new incarnation of est. [...] The philosophy of The Forum is essentially the philosophy of est: no excuses.
• Beckford, James A. (2003). Social Theory and Religion. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 156. ISBN 0521774314. Meanwhile, other commentators such as Tipton (1984) and Foss and Larkin (1976, 1979) detected a tendency for post-countercultural religious movements such as Erhard Seminars Training (now the Landmark Forum) to re-combine instrumentalism and expressivism in ways that could help their participants to fit into the routines of mainstream social life.
• Lewis, James R. (2002). The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 306. ISBN 1573928887. In 1985, est was discontinued and replaced by a program called The Forum, which is very similar to est.
• Partridge, Christopher Hugh (2005). Introduction to World Religions. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. p. 445. ISBN 9780800699703. Werner Erhard, founder of Erhard Seminar Training (est – now Landmark Forum) previously studied Scientology, but other groups have no such influence: for example Silva Method, PSI Mind Development and the School of Economic Science (SES), the last of which is influenced by TM.
• Colman, Andrew M. (2009). A Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 260, 412. ISBN 9780199534067. In 1984 the name [est] was changed to Landmark Forum, but it continued to be called est by many people. [...] Landmark Forum n. The official name, since 1984, for est.
• Clarke, Peter, ed. (2006). Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. p. 287. ISBN 0415267072. Some founders of self-development groups are from a sales background, and their groups have become involved in business consultancy and management training, such as Landmark Forum (formerly est), Scientology's subsidiaries WISE and Sterling Management Programmes Ltd, MSIA's Insight Seminars, Lifespring, and Silva.
• Ries, Al (2005). Focus: The Future of Your Company Depends on It. New York: HarperCollins. p. 164. ISBN 9780060799908. One might have thought that Werner Erhard, the company, was beyond saving. Not true. The name was destroyed, but not the company. Before the CBS program ran, but with knowledge of what it would likely say, Erhard sold the assets of Werner Erhard & Associates to his former employees and moved to Costa Rica.
  "The new name: Landmark Education Corporation. Today Landmark is a thriving company with forty offices around the world and some $40 million in annual revenues. Each year sixty thousand people participate in its programs. Landmark is bigger than Erhard ever was. You can change a name successfully. In fact, a name change may be the only practical solution to a serious public relations problem.
• Anderson, Kurt (2007). "Son of EST: The Terminator of Self-Doubt". In Ross, Lillian (ed.). The Fun of It: Stories from The Talk of the Town; The New Yorker. New York: Vintage Books/Random House. p. 413. ISBN 0375756493. But once again Erhardism, like disco and marijuana, is ascendant. Erhard's former associates, reconstituted as the Landmark Education Corporation, have morphed est into something called the Landmark Forum.
• Roth, Matthew (2011). "Coming Together: The Communal Option". In Carlsson, Chris; Elliott, Lisa Ruth (eds.). Ten Years That Shook the City: San Francisco 1968–1978. San Francisco, California: City Lights Books. p. 202. ISBN 9781931404129. Erhard sold his intellectual property in est to his brother and left the country in self-imposed exile. Erhard's legacy is in the business and professional self-help classes offered to this day at the Landmark Forum, a direct descendent of his teaching style.

How many more does one need to grasp the point that scholars and journalists treat these subjects together, often interchangeably? Other than Landmark, hardly anyone else holds out the confusing line that these entities are unrelated, yet somehow vaguely related. Erhard's Forum flowed directly into Landmark Forum with no big changes other than the name printed on the materials (just as it did when Landmark Education changed the nameplate to Landmark Worldwide). Have there been changes over the years? It would be shocking if there have not been. Is Landmark Forum a continuation of est? Certainly (if there was no relationship, why was there a licensing agreement, why did Landmark purchase rights from Erhard to operate in certain countries instead of starting its "unrelated" Landmark Forum programs in those locations, why does Landmark retain Erhard as consultant, and why else buy out Erhard's intellectual rights in 2002?). Claiming that these are separate subjects is indeed "bordering on ridiculous". • Astynax ^talk 05:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Even this list of cherry-picked sources and quotations does not support the argument that est=the Forum=Landmark's Forum.

• "Pay Money, Be Happy" - the quotation distinguishes between est, the Forum, and Landmark's Forum. It also repeats the old (completely refuted) noise about not being able to use a restroom during est courses... This editorial piece is clearly not "scholarship".
• "The Landmark Forum: 42 Hours..." - the quote is about how completely distinct the companies and products are from one another.
• "A Harvard Forum For Self-Promotion?" - the quote gets basic facts wrong (combining the Forum (a WE & A product) with Landmark Education (a company formed in 1991). Again, an editorial with little or no fact-checking. The quote still does not treat them as the same, it actually (again) distinguishes between them.
• "Employing the New Age..." - the selected quote (in a book compiled in 1992 from material that predates Landmark Education) is about the Forum (a WE&A product), not about Landmark Education or the Landmark Forum. The quote also shows that the pieces of Erhard's est were already getting broken up at that time (1984).
• San Francisco Bizarro - the quote is clearly not even about Landmark or its products. It is about Erhard and WE&A's products (est and the Forum).
• Psychotherapy in an Age of Narcissism - the quote (which for a 2013 publication is scarily wrong with the facts given that everything said there was later completely disproven and recanted) is not about Landmark or its products at all.
• Ethics in Psychology and the Mental Health Professions - the quote is a passing reference which combines product names, company names, and entire genres into a single misinformed sentence.
• Snapping... does at least attempt to say that est and WE&A's "the Forum" "contained essentially the same product" according to "many customers". Weak at best, and still not about Landmark or its products at all.
• The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality is the closest to linking them, but let's read the next sentence from the source: "In addition, a number of other est-like transformational/encounter seminars are currently conducted by organizations not connected with Erhard but using some of his basic ideologies and methodologies." Again, post-est we have this whole new genre. Landmark does not appear to dispute that it is a post-est company and they are obvious about being based on Erhard's work. None of this in any way means that est=Forum=Landmark Forum, in fact the existence of "a number of other... seminars" supports that there's no linear equality.
• "New Religions and Mental Health" - A perfect example of the lack of quality sources. "New Religions and Mental Health" was written by Barker in the early 80s and heavily quoted in Bhugra's 1996 work. It is unclear who added the "now known as the Landmark Forum" to the 1996 work, but it is not in the exact same line in 1980 or 1983's version of "New Religions and Mental Health". The "now known as the Landmark Forum" is also not in the "New Religious Movements in the West : Proceedings of the 1981 Annual Conference of the British Sociological Association, Sociology of Religion Study Group" from which most of the rest of the quotations about est are taken verbatim.
• "Religiosity Rejected" - this student paper begins by saying there are profound differences, and then sets out to find similarities. Similarities do not make something the same (VW and Porsche are not the same company, but there are certainly similarities and even MANY links).
• The Group in Society - roots? Okay... again, not saying that these are in any way the same products or companies.
• "New Religious Movements and Globalization" - another editorial modification of the original which predates Landmark's existence.
• The Encyclopedic Sourcebook of New Age Religions - this source doesn't even try to equate the companies or their products.

I could keep going, but it is obvious that saying that est=the Forum=The Landmark Forum is misstating what the sources say and synthesizing an argument from fragments of poorly assembled and cherry-picked quotes. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I see reliable sources indicating that Landmark is different from est in ownership, course design and methodology – note this Time Magazine article discussing differences in tuition, course length, approach, etc. Also, because the lead of the Landmark article directly states that its programs evolved out of the est training, I have no concerns that readers won't see the connection. Regarding that Ney case, I have some reluctance to make arguments based on it, since it’s a primary source, but I see it as making the case for the separateness of the organizations – for instance when the est CEO failed in his bid to buy the rights to the programs and Landmark got them instead, it’s clear that it’s not just a renaming going on (as contrasted by the shift in name of Landmark Education to Landmark Worldwide, which looks like a simple renaming). Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you mean the Time Magazine article that says, "Unlike Erhard, est is still around--sort of. In 1991, before he left the U.S., Erhard sold the 'technology' behind his seminars to his employees, who formed a new company called the Landmark Education Corp., with Erhard's brother Harry Rosenberg at the helm."? Sounds like a relationship to me, and the article doesn't at all deny that a continuum exists. When a quarterback is pulled out of a game and a new quarterback comes in and moves the same ball with the same team in direction of the same goal, it is a fantasy to claim it is new team or a new game. • Astynax ^talk 04:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose As someone said, when this question came up about a year ago, "Naturally Landmark Education bears resemblances to est. Christianity bears resemblances to Judaism, but that's not a reason to merge Christianity with Judaism. Erhard Seminars Training (est) should continue to stand alone as a topic. "In my opinion, merging the article about Erhard Seminars Training with Landmark Worldwide and Werner Erhard and Associates is a bad idea because it lumps together several entities, that may have some common roots, but were separate organizations. Erhard Seminars Training, est, was created by Werner Erhard, existed for a time, had an impact and then ceased to exist. It should have its own article, like a person who had a life, then died.

Also, I think Werner Erhard and Associates and Landmark Worldwide are very separate and different organizations and should not be lumped together. Landmark Worldwide makes a departure from the leadership of Werner Erhard. It would confuse the interested Wikipedia reader if these organizations were all together in one article, as if they are or were one. They definitely are not. RecoveringAddict (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Just to make it formal (as per comments above) either a merge or an overarching article that explains development of theory/history/links between the various groups in multiple sub-articles. AnonNep (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• To add: I spend a lot of my time on history articles. If this : "Those who are in a position to comment are people who had participated in both, and they all report that the two courses are entirely distinct in structure and methodology." we wouldn't have any history articles on Wikipedia prior to the rise of newspapers in the late 18th and early 19th century because every account previous to that could be 'survivour/victim/'biased (even after that date many have been challenged which is why we go to broader sources). No history before 1750s.... think about it. AnonNep (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose All three of these articles clearly state the connections between the three organisations and their product offerings, and they are all wikilinked to each other so I cannot see the rational for suggestions that anyone is trying to obscure matters by maintaining the existence of three articles. The est article contains a substantial amount of material which is of historical interest, but which would be completely disproportionate if incorporated here in full. On the other hand, if it were condensed and summarised for inclusion in the Landmark article, this would result in a loss of useful information. As for the strident assertion made above that est and the Landmark Forum are essentially one and the same, I have no personal knowledge because I only heard of Landmark in 2002, and all I have is vague recollections of est and Erhard being ridiculed in some sections of the press in the seventies. Those who are in a position to comment are people who had participated in both, and they all report that the two courses are entirely distinct in structure and methodology. So far as I can see the "scholarly sources" who assert that they are the same make no claim to have directly observed either one, much less both. So their assertions amount to no more than either hearsay or speculation. DaveApter (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I was brought here by a notice at the Extant Organizations Noticeboard. From what I can tell the primary overlap between all three articles is Est Training; providing this training seems to be the primary basis of all three organizations and (from what I can tell looking at the articles at a glance) the focus of the source material. I think a single article on Est Training with a corporate history-type section outlining its transition in ownership sounds appropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 16:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Landmark Forum or similar might in fact be the best title for the core article on this topic. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly - Great Suggestion - Landmark Forum is what Landmark Worldwide calls their main product all over their homepage, is a NPOV title, and it is the same product as previous corporate incarnations offered (updates to the technology excepted). The corporate name and ownership changes are secondary to the core product. They deserve discussion, and might be good sub-headings for a history section, but not much more. Landmark Forum is currently a redirect - I've requested deletion to make way for the page move. I think we can safely ignore all objections by DaveApter now that he has tried to have all other interested editors tossed off the article by ArbComm. Clearly WP:NOTHERE Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic of moving an article from the company name to a product name. As far as "it is the same product as previous corporate incarnations offered", again this would need some very good sources. The sources Astynax provided above, and numerous others over the years, have been pretty consistent in saying that this is a different product from a different company (est is not the Forum or the Landmark Forum, and the Forum is not the Landmark Forum). --Tgeairn (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A 1970 Chevrolet Corvette is not the same as a 2015 Corvette but we discuss the evolution of the product in one article. Please disclose your connection to Landmark Tgeairn so we can understand your POV. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A Porsche 959 is not the same as a Bugatti Veyron, even though they have closely related roots - and we do not combine them into one article. We do have an article on Sports Car though. Unsurprisingly, that article is little more than a stub. We are about precision and disambiguation here.

As far as your comments directed at me, I have clearly stated my interest and POV regarding Landmark and the cluster of NRM related articles here, on other NRM related talk pages, and in the recent Arbcom case. Feel free to search for my statements in those places. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The spin you put on quotations from reliable sources in an attempt to show that they "do not" say what they clearly "do say" is breathtaking. Of my 33 direct quotes, you purported to address less than half. And even in those, you are either gravely mistaken or interpreting everything in puzzling adherence to Landmark's marketing advocacy:

• "Pay Money, Be Happy": The quotation says "their courses are based on his 'technology'—the structure, style, and system of beliefs he used in est and later in the Forum". That is not making a distinction between unrelated entities. Nor is the point about restroom breaks during est courses something that has been refuted.
• "The Landmark Forum: 42 Hours..." Your spin that the article regards the current Landmark and its offerings as "completely distinct" is ridiculous. The article says no such thing anywhere. The quote is ""Part of it [Landmark Forum] is the in-your-face, hard-sell ethos embedded in the corporate DNA it inherited from est."
• "A Harvard Forum For Self-Promotion?" No the quote didn't get "basic facts wrong". The Forum was the program started by Erhard, which was simply continued under Landmark. Nitpicking that it is now officially "Landmark Forum" when it still is widely referred to as "the Forum" is bizzare. Nor does the article "actually (again) distinguishes between them" as you purport. Nowhere.
• "Employing the New Age..." Whether or not it relies upon an observation predating Landmark, it does show that Erhard created the Forum (Landmark's most notable product). The book was published well after Landmark took over the Forum.
• San Francisco Bizarro - The quote is not "clearly" only about WE&A: "Another incarnation of his philosophies [Erhard's est] is still based here in the city, the Landmark Education Corporation."
• Psychotherapy in an Age of Narcissism - actually not as "scarily wrong" as your statement that "everything said there was later completely disproven and recanted". As to your contention that it is not about Landmark, it clearly refers to the Forum after Erhard's departure (by which time it was the "Landmark Forum").
• Ethics in Psychology and the Mental Health Professions - The quote is hardly "a passing reference" and the section of the chapter on pseudoscientific therapies clearly indicates that the current iteration run by Landmark has its roots in Erhard's program.
• Snapping... - Your contention that the quote is "still not about Landmark or its products at all" rests entirely upon your uncited belief that the products are completely separate. Not so.
• The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality - isn't just "closest to linking them", despite your interpretation of the following sentence, it actually does link them: "Est was discontinued and replaced with The Forum, and in 1991, Werner Erhard and Associates (WE&A) was dissolved. In its place, Landmark Education was incorporated, with Erhard's brother, serving as CEO and overseeing the current seminar, which is called Landmark Forum." Landmark did not invent the Forum, it licensed it directly from Erhard.
• "New Religions and Mental Health" - Scholars update and republish material all the time. That is no excuse to presume to invalidate their (usually more accurate) updated work on the speculative OR basis that it is not the same as a previous version.
• "Religiosity Rejected" - Wrong. While this may have been based in part upon graduate work, Lockwood is a PhD and the article has been published in more than one respected, peer-reviewed journal. Your strawman that anyone contends that there are no differences in the program and/or company is as invalid as your fallacious contention that existence of differences make something not closely related. And, actually, Porche and VW are owned by the same holding company, and have a shared history, which is prominently noted in their articles. No one tries to make out that this is not the case.
• The Group in Society - Yes, "roots". That is a deep relationship. That something grew out of something else means that there is a continuum.
• "New Religious Movements and Globalization" - Again, it is invalid OR to speculate upon what went into a scholar's statement. Again, the quote is "est (now largely reconfigured as the Landmark Trust)."
• The Encyclopedic Sourcebook of New Age Religions - Yes, the cited quote does "equate the companies or their products". It mentions est's "various manifestations" which by 2004 would include the Forum under Landmark.

Many of these are available online in some form, so other editors can readily read for themselves. It is obvious to me that no matter how clear the statement from no matter how eminent the source, advocates will never accept referenced statements that disagree with original research based in Landmark's position. • Astynax ^talk 02:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Astynax: Well, obviously we disagree on basic pillars then. I am hopeful that other editors here will review the sources themselves. As for Landmark's position, what exactly is this position that I supposedly am adhering to? You are the one continuously defending (and advocating for) the position that this company should get the benefits and protections of a religion. How is it that you keep accusing me of advocating for Landmark when it is clearly you that are doing so? Let me be perfectly clear: I do not see sources that indicate that Landmark should be related to as a religion, and I do not think that we should use Wikipedia's voice to advance that propaganda. Is that clear enough for you? Will you continue to accuse me of advocacy when you are very obviously the one advocating? --Tgeairn (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edit comment Tgeairn is very much a personal attack. If there is a competency issue here it is your absolute refusal to accept any source that does not fit with your POV. Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I accept that, for whatever reason, you do not "see sources" – even when presented with such – for claims that almost no one outside of the Landmark universe denies (i.e., that scholars study est/the Forum/Landmark as an NRM and/or parareligion, that psychiatry and psychology view Landmark as making therapeutic claims, that scholars state that Landmark was developed with influences from Scientology and other sources, that Landmark Forum is classified as an LGAT, that the effectiveness of Landmark's offerings has been seriously questioned, that Landmark and its products are themselves described as "controversial", that Landmark and its offerings are deeply rooted in Erhard's est and Forum, etc). Instead, you evidently think it is OK to second-guess explicit published statements by scholars and journalists to characterize them as mistakes or "propaganda" that need to be excluded – something that indeed does violate Wikipedia's pillars and purpose – and which you have repeatedly gone at some length to show through nothing more than WP:OR. Repeated excision of such items, explicitly discussed in reliable sources, brings the article in line with the image Landmark itself prefers to project, and that is advocacy and in direct opposition to the policy that articles report all significant viewpoints presented in reliable sources. • Astynax ^talk 18:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine. You're going to continue to be an advocate for Landmark and all of the benefits that they will get from being a religion. I disagree (as above), and I am hopeful that other editors will read the sources. I am not "second-guess"ing sources, rather I am pointing out what they are saying. You are the one providing an interpretation of what the sources are saying, and you are interpreting what they are saying inside of your view that Landmark should get the benefits of being a religion. I am hopeful that others will actually read the sources and see that your advocacy for the company should be disregarded. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused about the benefits a minor category change on Wikipedia will bring Landmark. I doubt the IRS will care much about that. Could you be more specific about what these benefits are? AndroidCat (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what an IRS will do with Wikipedia moves. It seems likely that it would be nothing. The IRS has very little to do with perception, and Astynax is pushing for Landmark to get the same PR campaign that Scientology pushed to get their exemptions. --Tgeairn (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point, or game, is in introducing this new disinformation, as my comments here clearly show that I have never remotely edited, let alone hinted at, any such thing as proposing changing Landmark's tax status. Landmark's publicity machine has long advocated that, despite how scholars view and describe it, it has nothing to do with religion, is not an LGAT, is not therapy, has little or nothing to do with est or Erhard or Scientology, etc. Nor have I remotely been a party to impugning reliable sources, mischaracterizing what they say or arguing that reporting information based in reliable sources be excluded. • Astynax ^talk 08:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 10 January 2015

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)

• 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 ^talk 00:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This also seems to be a reasonable application of WP:COMMONNAME. • Astynax ^talk 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)

• 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)

• 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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)

• Oppose Reading 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)

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 ^talk 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)

One more encyclopedic source

User:NQ, who has my sincere thanks for this, found the following article in the encyclopedia Contemporary American Religions: [4]. John Carter (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. This is a good example of why WP:WPNOTRS says "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources". Tertiary sources like this are especially difficult. We can't see what sources the authors based their writing on, and the materials listed in the bibliography they provide predates the events they discuss by a decade or more. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither is it always, or even frequently, possible to discern exactly which sources an author of reliable secondary works (academic or otherwise) has based his/her statement(s). Few secondary works are as rigorously cited as a doctoral thesis. It is blatant WP:OR for editors to concoct objections to reliable sources based on speculation as to the reliable source's sourcing in any case. • Astynax ^talk 09:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, speaking as someone who has, I think, maybe a bit broader experience than a lot of others here, the page Tgeairn refers only to the specific type of sources which are preferred as sources in wikipedia. That is a very limited statement referring almost exclusively to citation and reference. In general, the five pillars at WP:PILLARS indicate that we are basically an encyclopedia. Considering that in general there really isn't in most cases that much of a difference between any encyclopedias of the same type on the same topic, it is and I think has always been taken as being perhaps one of our best goals to just, basically, find what other encyclopedic or other reference sources say on a subject and make sure we say that. WP:WEIGHT and other pages more or less implicitly follow that as well. So, while I agree that we don't cite tertiary sources that often, and shouldn't, it is extremely questionable to say that our content should not basically mirror or reflect that of other high-quality reference sources, barring changes since they were written or published. Unless we have obvious reasons, like very negative reviews, that a given purported reference source isn't very useful as a reference source, we are more or less implicitly bound by guidelines to reflect what they say, more or less, in our own content. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Good points. When mainstream scholarly reviews point out issues with a claim, even a claim in an otherwise reliable source, we present the mainstream view (although we still note dissenting viewpoints held by a significant faction of reputable scholars). Moreover, and although they are not frequently used, primary and tertiary sources may indeed be cited. Discounting primary and secondary sources, not to mention summarily blanking material on the basis that a statement(s) cites primary (or tertiary) sources, is a misreading and misapplication of policy. • Astynax ^talk 18:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Using primary or tertiary sources without having reliable secondary sources to establish context is generally limited to only the most basic of factual statements, and even then is discouraged. No one in this conversation is discussing (and certainly not discounting) reliable secondary sources, so I do not understand the point raised here. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That is wrong. Use of tertiary and primary sources is nowhere "discouraged" by policy. The only thing the guideline encourages is that articles "mainly" employ secondary sources. Other than the restriction on citing Wikipedia itself, there is no restriction on using tertiary sources—certainly nothing that limits "to only the most basic of factual statements". Policy does say that primary sources must be used carefully to avoid synthesis. • Astynax ^talk 00:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY is policy. It says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." That sounds like a preference for secondary sources. It goes on to say "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.", which is to say that we need context beyond the PRIMARY source. The policy goes on to clarify this, saying "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." This certainly appears to me to be policy saying that we need reliable secondary sources (which, again, no one in this thread is disputing) to provide the interpretation. PRIMARY also says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Again, this is policy. Some editors here are continually pushing primary and tertiary sources without regard for context or quality, and without regard for what the reliable secondary sources say. --Tgeairn (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The policy from which you are quoting is explicitly talking about the balance of source types used over entire articles, no more and no less. It absolutely does not forbid or discourage use of primary, let alone tertiary, sources to cite portions of articles. It does also go on to explain the few limitations on 1) primary sources (i.e., no editor synthesis as is the case with any source, or personal experiences), and 2) a single limit on tertiary sources (i.e., it is almost always against policy to cite Wikipedia in Wikipedia articles). If there is a reliable secondary or tertiary source, those would normally be used instead of a primary source, though even so, a primary source can still be useful in many situations (one does not need to cite a secondary or tertiary source to support: "the Declaration of Independence states 'We hold these truths to be self-evident...'"). • Astynax ^talk 10:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:WPNOTRS is about sourcing on Wikipedia. Given that this section was created entitled "One more encyclopedic source", and that we are in fact on Wikipedia, I didn't see the need to explicitly say that my comment is specifically about the use of sources on Wikipedia. Of course, the quoted passage does say exactly that. Ultimately, you agree that "...we don't cite tertiary sources that often, and shouldn't...". While it is not our place to attempt to mirror reference sources (Wikipedia is more than a simple compilation of other references), I agree that the result is often that a Wikipedia article contains similar information to other related works. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No one is talking about secondary sources here. Encyclopedias, and specifically the one provided here, are tertiary sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The type of source does not affect its reliability. A reliable tertiary source is just as fit for citation as a reliable secondary source. As policy indicates, tertiary sources can also be a good guide as to the relative weight given to varying scholarly opinions in an article. • Astynax ^talk 00:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not exactly accurate. While any type of source may or may not be reliable, the type of source does affect its cite-ability. Reliable secondary sources are far more "fit for citation" than primary or tertiary ones. WP:PSTS is policy and it deals with this clearly. WP:WPNOTRS is a guideline, and it also is clear about this. --Tgeairn (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, no, all three may be cited. As stated, the caveats include 1) for primary sources, that editors should not synthesize (which is also the case for all sources) or base entire articles/long passages on primary sources, and 2) for tertiary sources, only that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for citations. Neither policy or guidelines "discourage" or affect fitness for citation of any of these 3 types. I would suggest rereading those links. • Astynax ^talk 10:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is a discussion relevant to this topic taking place at WP:ANI. Input is welcome. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Let me just park this here: editors, please see Talk:Landmark_Education_litigation#Proposed_merge_with_Landmark_Worldwide. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I performed the basic merge, but the material dropped in needs work. Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"Comment" committee

When I was proposing what I called the "comment" committee in the ArbCom case, I was basically envisioning the following as being the primary activities of it:

• 1) which separate articles and sections of articles would reasonably be required to cover the history of est/Landmark in a comprehensive way, and which have sufficient notability and content for possible separate articles;
• 2) which should be the "primary" article on the topic, if there is to be one;
• 3) which if any extant separate topics exist out there which might serve as indicators of how to do the above two points;
• 4) what articles on closely related topics, such as Large group awareness training, exist, and what content would most reasonably be included in those articles;
• 5) probably the hardest point, and the one which I tend to myself think would probably be most important in the possible RfC at the end, if there is one, is the thorniest issue regarding the topic in general, to what extent the various articles should discuss and describe the philosophical/religious underpinnings which have been attributed to the original est program, and to what extent that should be covered and where.

The intention was for that group of editors as a group to review the material available and offer one or more questions for one or more RfC from the greater community on how to deal with those concerns.

I guess one fundamental question would be where to have this conversation, on this page or perhaps an article space subpage, as well.

In any event, pretty much by definition, all input is welcome, including those who are already discussed this matter with in a preliminary way, who I am pinging below: @Blueboar: @Casliber: @Dr. Blofeld: @Drmies: @Jayen466: @Keithbob: @Liz: @Maunus: @Newyorkbrad: @Piotrus: If anyone can think of any other basically uninvolved editors who might have useful knowledge about how wikipedia deals with such things, please feel free to contact them as you see fit.

John Carter (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess the first point of primary concern might be which article, under what title, should be the primary article on this topic. What suggestions are there, and what evidence and reasoning supports them? I do not think that this issue will necessarily be decided immediately by the editors already active here, or any newcomers, but it would probably be the most reasonable topic for the first RfC. Depending on how quickly the material on this topic is gathered, the following discussions, which are probably more or less dependent on that first one, will probably follow. John Carter (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Without intending to be argumentative here, what is the problem with the current naming of the articles? This looks like a solution in search of a problem. This article clearly gives the connection to the est training in the lead of the article, and links to that article, which gives detailed history there. This article is based on the company name now and also covers the main product - we could certainly have a section that went into The Landmark Forum in more detail. In fact, there was a bunch more information about the details of that course itself that was recently removed, if I recall correctly. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that ARBCOM has, basically, said there are obvious problems with these articles, and that there seems to be good reason to believe that the individuals who have been most closely involved in creating those problems in the recent edit history of the articles do not perceive those problems, which is why the arbitrators called for additional uninvolved eyes to review the content. Presumably, they might be able to see the obvious problems with the articles that apparently even the arbitrators perceived but perhaps that certain editors who have recently been heavily involved in the articles cannot. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A working group of some kind is an intriguing idea, however limiting the work of the group to Landmark, EST, and WE&A would tend to produce a pretty myopic view. It would be interesting to take on the entirety of these "Human Potential" articles. As we have all seen, there is a lot of confusion and "FUD" around "religion or not", "cult or not", "movement or not", etc. A Wikiproject? --Tgeairn (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Brard Repetition

I noticed that with the merge of the litigation article, the article mentions the Brard lawsuit in the public reception section and the litigation section. This seems like a lot of coverage about a lawsuit that looks like it went nowhere (it seems like it was dropped or dismissed, but I don't see a resolution here - does anyone else have a source that mentions the outcome?). I notice there's no resolution to the Been material either (it literally ends with a comma). I think this was dismissed, but again, I don't have the source in front of me - we'd actually want to give the resolution. The larger issue is how much space we give to lawsuits that were dismissed or dropped (if indeed they were). There's an undue weight issue with giving a ton of airtime to lawsuits with little discernible impact, given that most companies have some of these. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have merged the Brard material into the reception section where the context for the case was already discussed, eliminating the duplication. I don't know the final outcome of the Been v Weed case, but our own materials at commons show that Landmark was removed from the case as a defendant. Since our only sources are either PRIMARY or pre-trial, and I did not find any actual WP:RS later discussing the trial or outcome, I removed the Been v Weed case from the article. Lastly, I merged the remaining material into the relevant sections and removed the WP:OR. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using Primary sources. How about you restore the information again. Legacypac (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

We need a reliable secondary source to establish the relevance of this. We can't have a whole item with only a primary source. See WP:WPNOTRS and WP:PSTS for more. Any company that has been around for 23 years is going to have lawsuits, especially one that claims to have had millions of customers in its offices. Without secondary sources commenting on the lawsuit and its outcome, there's no way it deserves weight in an article about the company. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Werner Erhard Navbox

I removed the {{Werner Erhard}} navigation box from the footer of the page, as Erhard's association with this company is described in the article and he is linked there. The relevant other links from the navigation box are also already listed in the body of the article. Including the navigation box is WP:UNDUE as it adds disproportionate weight to the creator of the company that Landmark purchased intellectual property from. Erhard appears to only be involved as a consultant to Landmark, and this big bright template leaves readers with a misleading perception.

Legacypac reverted the removal of the template, so I am bringing this here for discussion.

The question is, does inclusion of the Werner Erhard navigation template unbalance the article? --Tgeairn (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Persistent attempts to structure the article along the narrative preferred by Landmark is unbalancing the article. The CEO of the company is his brother, and I read that his sister is on the board. He says he created the technology and "consults" for the current company. We don't know the actual shareholdings of this business, but pretty clear Erhard remains either a key or the key figure. Separating Erhard from Landmark is like separating Santa Claus or Jesus from Christmas. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the "narrative preferred by Landmark"? I have now seen this (or similar) statement from four different editors (Lithistman, Zambelo, Astynax, and now Legacypac), and I have not seen a single source or reference for it. As for Erhard's relationship, we have what the RS are telling us (Landmark purchased intellectual property rights from a company he founded, he consults with Landmark). --Tgeairn (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The CLNT guidelines list as disadvantage #4 "Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others; be used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places; or assert project proprietorship." Including this navbox here appears to run afoul of this disadvantage. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I can see nothing in the comments above which seems to me to justify the removal of the template. The template was evidently created at a time when it was thought that the main article for this topic was Werner Erhard. It is and always has been reasonable to link related articles, and a company which is based on the thinking of an individual, as Landmark admits, is clearly related. Now, it might be possible that the time has come to consider whether Werner Erhard really is the main article on this topic. If it isn't, then it would certainly be reasonable to adjust the template in such a way as to place the main article of the topic as the main listing in the template. That would actually be reasonable. But there should first be discussion and consensus regarding how to structure the related content, and then adjust the navbox template based on the outcome of that discussion. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense as a narrative explanation for how we ended up with the template here. I don't think that narrative supports continuing to keep it, but you raise a possible alternative to keep/remove. Thanks. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is one of the reasons why I think the first and primary purpose right now is to determine, at least on a tentative basis, what the main article on this topic is, and what other articles should exist, and if possible which subarticles/subsections should exist in which of the various articles. Or, in short, the things which I have proposed in the comment committee section. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

After a little digging in histories, the navigation box was created by a now topic-banned editor. That editor was topic-banned (and de-sysopped) for intentionally placing "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements". That same editor added the navbox to this article. Given that this behaviour is exactly what the concern is here, and is exactly what the editor was topic-banned for, I believe that this alone justifies the immediate removal of the navbox. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting allegation "Landmark's ongoing censorship and propaganda efforts include a campaign against Wikipedia, where Landmark is removing critical information and replacing it with propaganda." coupled with the substance of the document which says Landmark uses unpaid volunteers. [5] Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, an interesting allegation. Did you read the whole statement (specifically "Wikipedia editors are meeting to consider the Landmark Education entry, and we need this document published so we can cite and refer to it in our efforts to restore the truth about Landmark to Wikipedia.")? Given the obvious heavy-handed POV of the anonymously written summary, the idea that the same author says they are working with others to restore the truth is frightening. I am going to examine to edit history of the article around the publication timeframe. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting response. Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is unsurprising that many of the active editors in the months surrounding the publication date of that document (which is in itself innocuous and has been discussed here relatively recently) are now topic-banned/de-sysopped/indefinitely blocked/site-banned. I do see that there are a few familiar names as well. The "Description (as provided by our source)" gives an interesting perspective into the mind (POV) of at least one of the contributors here at that time (and it explicitly says "we", indicating more than one). --Tgeairn (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Realizing that some of the recent editors here are inclined to paranoia about the motivations of others, as is evidenced by recent commentary, yes, including my own regarding what is to my eyes one of the two or three most long-term POV pushers I know of in wikipedia, I sincerely urge all editors involved to refrain from speculating unduly about who was or was not involved in uploading of documents unless they have real sources to support that. Also, honestly, the number of websites I've seen that regularly use the royal "we" to indicate to those who read it is really remarkable. This is particularly true of minor religious or philosophical groups which are not necessarily notable, but which use their websites to give a false impression of numerous followers by having one or two people write under dozens or hundreds of names. "We are not amused", despite being apocryphal, is maybe the best instance and example of the use of the royal "we". Also, there really isn't much along the lines of WP:TPG which speculation about the origins of documents offsite is. Having said that, I do see the same document over at archive.org, which I've downloaded several encyclopedias from, and the fed hasn't apparently objected to it or considered it a fake, so it might be accurate, although, admittedly, I don't know that, having no other examples of potentially dubious documents uploaded to archive.org to compare it to or use to determine numbers. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes the legitimacy of the document. My commentary is directed at the editorial "Description (as provided by our source)" that accompanies the file. I join you in urging "all editors involved to refrain from speculating unduly" (period). Thanks. (Royal we... made me laugh, thanks for that too) --Tgeairn (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So what is your relationship to Landmark User:Tgeairn? Have you ever been or are you currently an employee, a volunteer or otherwise connected to the company? Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That question is completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion. We are here to discuss content, not contributors.

Having said that, I will not be hounded over the course of weeks or months as DaveApter has been, so I am clearly stating that there is not and has never been a WP:COI of any kind, nature, shape, or type. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Your editing contributions and talk page contributions, including in this thread, suggest otherwise. You raised the issue a few posts up. Now you evaded my question which makes you sound like a WP:DUCK.Legacypac (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Call me what you like. Do not raise this issue again here, take it to the appropriate noticeboard (WP:COIN). You did not answer my question. You said above that there is a "narrative preferred by Landmark" and I asked what that narrative is, and what your source is. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) There is a difference between being maybe an SPA and having a COI. also, honestly, depending on definitions of terms, I might have a COI because I am, according to the way that the Church of Scientology defines the term, I am a Scientologist. I bought a book in the 1980s in college once, because I was, basically, pursuing a cute female whose job was, apparently, according to some academic sources published then, to lure idiots like me in that way. Anyway, according to the way they determine "membership," that makes me a Scientologist, although I don't think that anyone else would consider me such, particularly me. There is a regrettable tendency, which seems to be documented in at least some material on Landmark and its various iterations, for those associated with Landmark to parse language in ways that most lawyers might consider extreme, but the above statement doesn't seem to be doing such parsing. If we assume he has read WP:COI and understands everything it says, I have to take that statement as accurate. However, there is also a bit of a tendency, which I share, on the net for some people to try to defend things or people which they see as being under unreasonable attack. I don't fault people like that, being one of them, but the fact that I know that I myself qualify as one such leads me to think that getting more people without prior POV's of any kind involved is and was a good idea. I note that the ARCA page has Seraphimblade proposing some sort of discretionary sanctions in the future, and think that, if the lack of such is one of the reasons others have chosen to not be involved, that change might help. Also, maybe, after the new school term settles in, we might find a few other editors perhaps interested in taking part. I hope so, anyway.

Also, I would assume the narrative preferred by Landmark is the one in which they are a true blue pure harmless helpless group which brings out the best in people, just like the narrative preferred by the Catholic Church, of which I am a member, is that it is the direct voice of God on earth, and that all the disgusting and sometimes just straight weird things that have been done by its members and leaders are aberrations. Honestly, regarding most older religions, I think that the latter part is also true of most any religious group which has stood the test of several hundred or more years, but I think it is reasonable for us to assume that most groups want to see themselves portrayed in the best possible light, which includes both maximizing the things they can play up in their support and minimizing the things which don't make them look so good. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit to a bit of an indignant perspective from time-to-time. It is, after all, how I ended up working on this set of articles (as I've described elsewhere). I saw the recent comment on the ARCA page as well, so hopefully we will get a vote on a DS motion soon. I'd propose an amendment to the Landmark Worldwide case, but it is much less work for an Arb to make a motion.

Also, I understand what John Carter is saying about preferred narrative, but it appears that some (notably the list I provided earlier) believe that there is some story that Landmark is telling or pushing. I honestly do not see that in their materials (many of the materials on their own website are not exactly all peaches and cream, for instance) or anywhere else. If there is some narrative "out there" somewhere, I'd like to see it. If there isn't, I'd like to stop hearing about it and get back to working on articles or at least recent changes patrol. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter:Seraphimblade has moved for the application of DS to Landmark Worldwide as a topic. Let's hope that you and I are correct that DS will pass and bring some new editor eyes to the mix. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I frankly don't know much about Landmark until I started looking at this article and doing some reading, but it seems clear so far that there are dedicated defenders here who will remove anything that does not match the company narrative, and try to force off any editors that don't tow the company line. If this is going to be a puff piece, let's just delete the whole thing. Legacypac (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, what is "the company narrative"? I agree that there appear to be differing entrenched perspectives. What I don't actually know is what the supposed narrative is. We have editors arguing that the company is religious, others arguing that the program is religious, others arguing that the program is essentially one continuum from the early 70s, others arguing that there's no religion there, others saying it's a cult, others saying it isn't, others saying it's great, others saying stay away. On top of all of that, we have editors slinging accusations around. Then we have walls of text arguing over sources. Then we have editors saying black is white and red is up. Then we have a near-constant stream of editors appearing, making mass changes, then disappearing. Of course, we also have editors who change accounts every few months. I could probably go on and on, but maybe you can understand why John Carter (and I, and others) are asking you to assume a little good faith here. And, maybe you can understand why I am legitimately asking, what is the "company narrative" that you are speaking of? Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation format

Is there any problem with changing to the [[Template:sfn|sfn short footnote citation format}}? This keeps <ref name=> citations from being orphaned when material is deletd or moved, makes the footnotes tidier and is simpler to use (no looking around the text for where you might have repeated the same reference) when citing the same reference in multiple locations. The <ref></ref> format can continue to be used by editors unfamiliar with the short footnote format. If no objection, I'll switch over the existing cites. • Astynax ^talk 23:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. John Carter (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)