Talk:Landmark Worldwide - Wikipedia

4 people in discussion

Article Images

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal discussions about the subject. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal discussions about the subject at the Reference desk.

To-do list for Landmark Worldwide: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-09-15

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Add some images with detailed fair-use rationale, or if possible, some free images, to the article.
Cleanup : Cleanup and format all citations as per Wikipedia:Citation templates.
Copyedit : Copyedit grammar, paraphrasing quotations where appropriate.
Expand : Expand and add to the article from the citations currently cited in the See Also and References sections.
Update : Add information/expand from more recent citations in secondary sources, if known/available.
Other : Partial list of sources with relevant material in cite format...
- Journalism
  - Alford, Henry (28 November 2010). "You're O.K., But I'm Not. Let's Share". New York Times. New York. p. L1.
  - 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.
  - Baker, Richard; McKenzie, Nick (30 August 2011). "Department Chops $80,000 'Charisma' Seminar". The Age. Melbourne, Victoria: Fairfax Media.
  - Beam, Alex (6 November 1998). "A Harvard Forum For Self-Promotion?". Boston Globe. Boston Massachussets.
  - Beam, Alex (2 April 1999). "Case in Point". Boston Globe. Boston Massachussets.
  - Boulware, Jack (2000). San Francisco Bizarro. New York: Macmillan/St. Martins. p. 38. ISBN 0312206712.
  - Collier, Roger (18 November 2014). "10 health stories that mattered: Oct. 11–17". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 186 (17). Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Medical Association. doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-4924.
  - Davidson, James (17 October 1987). "Businessmen get expert coaching". Globe & Mail. Toronto. p. B1.
  - Elsener, Marcel (3 September 2014). "Landmark spielt schon lange keine Rolle mehr". Thurgauer Zeitung. St. Galler, Thurgau Switzerland: St. Galler Tagblatt AG. Retrieved 5 September 2014.
  - Faltermayer, Charlotte (24 June 2001). "The Best of est?". Time Magazine. New York. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
  - Goldwag, Arthur (2009). Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies. New York: Knopf Doubleday. pp. 28–30. ISBN 9780307390677.
  - Grigoriadis, Vanessa (9 July 2001). "Pay Money, Be Happy". New York Magazine. New York, New York. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
  - Hellard, Peta (11 June 2006). "Stress Fear in $700 Child Forum: WA children as young as eight who attend "life-changing" coaching sessions by a controversial US company could have difficulty with their schoolwork afterwards, according to experts". Sunday Times. Perth, Western Australia: News Corporation.
  - 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.
  - Kaminer, Wendy (1993). I'm Disfunctional, You're Disfunctional. New York: Vintage Books/Random House. ISBN 0-679-74585-8.
  - Lutz, Ashley (9 January 2014). "Lululemon Spends $500 for Workers to Attend a Controversial Retreat Endorsed by Founder Chip Wilson". Business Insider. New York, New York: Business Insider, Inc. Retrieved 5 September 2014.
  - 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.
  - Russell, Charles; Russell, Jennie (15 October 2014). "AHS employee complaint over Landmark seminars sparks review: Public Interest Commissioner will look into complaint over controversial Landmark Education training". CBC News. Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
  - Russell, Charles; Russell, Jennie (15 October 2014). "Alberta Health Services staff pressured to attend controversial seminars: Government continued to use Landmark Education despite employee complaints". CBC News. Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
  - Russell, Charles; Russell, Jennie (17 October 2014). "Alberta Health Services hired 'coach' to implement Landmark ideology: Sole-source contract breached department policy". CBC News. Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved 2014-10-25.
  - Scioscia, Amanda (19 October 2000). "Drive-thru Deliverance: It's not called est anymore, but you can still be ridiculed into self-awareness in just one expensive weekend". Phoenix New Times. Phoenix, Arizona.
  - Sexton, Mike (15 November 2011). "Landmark's controversial training programs". 7.30. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 5 September 2014.
  - staff (3 September 2014). "Cults Week—Café Gratitude and the Cult of Commerce". Curbed LA. Los Angeles: Curbed. Retrieved 11 November 2014.
  - staff (17 December 2013). "Landmark Education Targeting Indians with Its Overpriced Courses". Moneylife. Dadar, Mumbai: Hind Service Industries.
  - Welkos, Robert W. (29 December 1991). "Scientologists Ran Campaign to Discredit Erhard, Detective Says: Religion: Competition for customers said to be the motive behind investigation launched into activities of the est founder". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, California.
  - Walsh, Nikki (19 February 2012). "One Weekend to Fix Your Life?". Irish Mail on Sunday.
  - McNutt, Helen (December 2006). "Managing My Inner Brat". The Sunday Times. London.
  - Thornburg, Nathan (7 March 2011). "Change We Can (Almost) Believe In". TIME.
  - Kim, Jen (16 July 2013). "Why We Are the Way We Are". Psychology Today.
  - Lieber, Chavie (8 January 2014). "The Self-Help Movement Behind Lululemon's Eerie Dogma". Racked.
  - Capuzzo, Jill (March 1996). "Come on! There's a New Life Waiting Over the Weekend". Philadelphia Inquirer.
  - Thorne, Matt (13 July 2008). "Chuck Palahniuk talks sex dolls, strippers and the one subject he won't write about". The Independent.
  - Bernstein, Elizabeth (16 April 2011). "Friendly Fight: A Smarter Way to Say 'I'm Angry'". Wall Street Journal.
  - Taylor, Camille (26 November 2008). "A Dream to Transform Self, Company and Country". Jamaica Gleaner.
- Sociology
  - Arweck, Elisabeth (2004). Researching New Religious Movements: Responses and Redefinitions. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 0203642376.
  - 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.
  - Barker, Eileen (2005). "New Religious Movements in Europe". In Jones, Lindsay (ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion. Detroit: Macmillan Reference. ISBN 9780028657431.
  - Beckford, James A.; Levasseur, Martine (1986). "New Religious movements in Western Europe". In Beckford, James A. (ed.). New Religious Movements and Rapid Social Change. London: Sage/UNESCO. ISBN 92-3-102-402-7.
  - 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.
  - George D. Chryssides (2001). Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow. ISBN 0810840952.
  - Clarke, Peter B. (2006). New Religions in Global Perspective: A Study of Religious Change in the Modern World. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 11, 102–103. ISBN 9780415257480.
  - Cresswell, Jamie; Wilson, Bryan, eds. (1999). New Religious Movements. Routledge. p. 35. ISBN 0415200504.
  - Greeley, Andrew M. (1995). Sociology and Religion: a Collection of Readings. London: HarperCollins. p. 299. ISBN 0065018818.
  - Hammer, Olav; Rothstein, Mikael, eds. (2012). The Cambridge Companion to New Religious Movements. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 19, 45. ISBN 9780521145657.
  - Helas, Paul (1991). "Western Europe: Self Religion". In Clarke, Peter; Sutherland, Stewart (eds.). The World's Religions: The Study of Religion, Traditional and New Religion. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06432-5.
  - Wallis, Roy (1991). "North America". In Clarke, Peter; Sutherland, Stewart (eds.). The World's Religions: The Study of Religion, Traditional and New Religion. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06432-5.
  - Jenkins, Philip (2000). Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History. London: Oxford University Press. p. 180. ISBN 0195127447.
  - Kurtz, Lester R. (2007). Gods in the Global Village: The World's Religions in Sociological Perspective. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge. p. 219. ISBN 9781412927154.
  - Lewis, James R. (2004). The Encyclopedic Sourcebook of New Age Religions. Prometheus Books. p. 187. ISBN 1591020409.
  - 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: 225–254. ISSN 2041-9511.
  - Lockwood, Renee D. (June 2012). "Pilgrimages to the Self: Exploring the Topography of Western Consumer Spirituality through 'the Journey'". Literature & Aesthetics. 22 (1). Sydney, New South Wales: Sydney Society of Literature and Aesthetics: 111, 125. ISSN 1036-9368.
  - Nelson, Geoffrey K. (1987). Cults, New Religions and Religious Creativity. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ISBN 0-7102-0855-3.
  - Palmer, Dominic (2011). The New Heretics of France. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 27, 160–161, 186. ISBN 9780199735211.
  - Parsons, Gerald (1993). "Expanding the religious spectrum: New Religious Movements in Modern Britain". In Parsons, Gerald (ed.). The Growth of Religious Diversity: Britain from 1945: Volume 1 Traditions. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415083265.
  - 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.
  - Roof, Wade Clark; McKinney, William, eds. (1987). American Mainline Religion: Its Changing Shape and Future. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. p. 245. ISBN 0813512158.
  - Rupert, Glenn A. (1992). Lewis, James R.; Melton, J. Gordon (eds.). Perspectives on the New Age. Albany, New York: SUNY Press. p. 130. ISBN 079141213X.
  - Siegler, Elijah (2004). "Marketing Lazaris". In Lewis, James R. (ed.). The Encyclopedic Sourcebook of New Age Religions. Amherst, New York: Prometheus. ISBN 1591020409.
  - Taliaferro, Charles; Harrison, Victoria S.; Goetz, Stewart, eds. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Theism. Routledge. p. 123. ISBN 9780415881647.
  - Wuthnow, Robert (1986). "Religious movements in North America". In Beckford, James A. (ed.). New Religious Movements and Rapid Social Change. London: Sage/UNESCO. ISBN 92-3-102-402-7.
  - York, Michael (1995). The Emerging Network: A Sociology of the New Age and Neo-pagan Movements. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 55–57. ISBN 0847680010.
- History
  - 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: City Lights. pp. 201–202. ISBN 9781931404129.
  - Sandbrook, Dominic (2012). Mad As Hell: The Crisis of the 1970s and the Rise of the Populist Right. New York: Anchor Books. pp. 168–169. ISBN 9781400077243.
- Religion and philosophy
  - Collins, Gary R. (1998). The Soul Search: A Spiritual Journey to Authentic Intimacy with God. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. ISBN 0785274111.
  - Evans, Jules (2013). Philosophy for Life and Other Dangerous Situations. Novato, California: New World Library. pp. 135–142. ISBN 9781608682294.
  - Hexham, Irving (1993). The Concise Dictionary of Religion. Vancouver, B.C.: Regent College Publishing. pp. 75–76. ISBN 1573831204.
  - Hexham, Irving (2002). Pocket Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic. p. 47. ISBN 0830814663.
  - Kyle, Richard (1993). Religious Fringe: A History of Alternative Religions in America. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity. ISBN 0830817662. Est is no ordinary California cult. Rather, as John Clark points out, it is 'a form of secular salvation.' It is 'secular' because it is not identified with any formal religion. In fact, est denies being a religion at all. Yet est does propound a worldview and does have religious overtones. Since its purpose is to alter one's epistemology and instill a monistic or pantheistic belief in impersonal divinity, est qualifies as religious in the expansive use of the term.
  - Richardson, James T. (1998). "est (THE FORUM)". In Swatos, Jr., William H. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira. pp. 167–168. ISBN 0761989560.
  - Saliba, John A. (2003). Understanding New Religious Movements. Walnut Creek, California: Rowman Altamira. p. 88. ISBN 9780759103559.
  - Smith, Jonathan Z., ed. (1995). HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. pp. 343, 365, 795. ISBN 0060675152.
  - Vitz, Paul C. (1994). Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-worship. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 26–28. ISBN 0802807259.
  - Young, Wendy Warren (1987). "The Aims and Methods of 'est' and 'The Centres Network'". In Clarke, Peter Bernard (ed.). The New Evangelists: Recruitment Methods and Aims of New Religious Movements. London: Ethnographica. pp. 134–147. ISBN 0905788605.
- Business
  - 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.
  - Black, Jonathan (2006). Yes You Can!: Behind the Hype and Hustle of the Motivation Biz. New York: Bloomsbury. p. 133. ISBN 9781596910003.
  - Hayes, Dennis (1989). Behind the Silicon Curtain: The Seductions of Work in a Lonely Era. Boston: South End Press. pp. 120–121. ISBN 0896083500.
  - Ries, Al (2005). Focus: The Future of Your Company Depends on It. New York: HarperCollins. p. 164. ISBN 9780060799908.
  - Sosik, John J. (2006). Leading with Character: Stories of Valor and Virtue and the Principles They Teach. Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age. pp. 16–17. ISBN 9781593115418.
  - Wildflower, Leni (2013). The Hidden History of Coaching. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. p. 101. ISBN 9780335245406.
- Psychiatry and psychology
  - 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.
  - Brewer, Mark (August 1975). "We're Gonna Tear You Down and Put You Back Together". Psychology Today. 9. New York: Sussex: 35–39.
  - Chappell, Clive; Rhodes, Carl; Solomon, Nicky; Tennant, Mark; Yates, Lyn, eds. (2003). Reconstructing the Lifelong Learner: Pedagogy and Identity in Individual, Organisational and Social Change. London: RoutledgeFalmer. pp. 94–106. ISBN 0415263484.
  - Colman, Andrew M. (2009). A Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 260, 412. ISBN 9780199534067.
  - Conway, Flo; Siegelman, Jim (1995). Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change. New York: Stillpoint. pp. 15–18. ISBN 0964765004.
  - Eisner, Donald A. (2000). The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. p. 60. ISBN 0275964132.
  - 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.
  - Galanter, Marc (1989). Cults and New Religious Movements. American Psychiatric Association. p. 31. ISBN 0890422125.
  - Gastil, John (2010). The Group in Society. Thousand Oaks and London: SAGE. pp. 226–227. ISBN 9781412924689.
  - Klar, Yechiel; Mendola, Richard; Fisher, Jeffrey D.; Silver, Roxane Cohen; Chinsky, Jack M.; Goff, Barry (1990). "Characteristics of Participants in a Large Group Awareness Training". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 58 (1). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association: 99–108. ISSN 0022-006X.
  - Klar, Yechiel; Mendola, Richard; Fisher, Jeffrey D.; Silver, Roxane Cohen; Chinsky, Jack M.; Goff, Barry (1990). Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training. New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0387973206. (full study)
  - Koocher, Gerald P.; Keith-Spiegel, Patricia (2008). Ethics in Psychology and the Mental Health Professions: Standards and Cases. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 151. ISBN 9780195149111.
  - Moskowitz, Eva S. (2001). In Therapy We Trust: America's Obsession with Self Fulfillment. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press. pp. 236–239. ISBN 0801864038.
  - Oakes, Len (1997). Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. pp. 51, 189. ISBN 0815627009.
  - Paris, Joel (2013). Psychotherapy in an Age of Narcissism: Modernity, Science, and Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 20–21. ISBN 9780230336964.
  - Rubinstein, Gidi (2005). "Characteristics of participants in the Forum, psychotherapy clients, and control participants: A comparative study". Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice (78). Leicester: British Psychological Society: 481–492.
  - Zimbardo, Philip; Andersen, Susan (1995). "Understanding Mind Control: Exotic and Mundane Mental Manipulations". In Michael, Langone (ed.). Recovery from Cults. New York: Norton. ISBN 0393313212.

It seems to me the material under the sections 'Accusations of being a cult' and 'Controversial marketing practices' would be more appropriate for presentation under the 'Reception' section. Some examples of articles organized in a similar manner are: Tony Robbins, Personal Development, Lifespring, and Alcoholics Anonymous. Coalcity58 (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

We should follow WP:LEAD and add the criticism of it being a cult to the lead section. Also those articles you list are far from perfect. Polygnotus (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it has no place in the lead unless you're committed to presenting the organization in a negative light and reinforcing the idea that the company is a cult. Positioning the information in that manner introduces de facto bias. As for the articles I pointed to as examples, what qualifies you to determine how perfect or imperfect they are? Make your case for them being imperfect. Coalcity58 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will donate 100 USD to a charity of your choice if you send me a perfect Wikipedia article. To qualify it should at least do my taxes and some light chores around the house. Polygnotus (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have not answered my question. But you get some points for a marginally creative dodge. Coalcity58 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I hate unloading the dishwasher. Polygnotus (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it does belong in the lead, per policy. Per WP:MOSLEAD: "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents." ... "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Coalcity58: A debate about content doesn't have to be "settled" to include or remove it. Due to its nature, much of the content on Wikipedia is constantly debated. But that doesn't mean we delete all the content that someone might disagree with or object to. See for example WP:NOTCENSORED. The ~~beatings~~ debates will continue until ~~morale improves~~ the heat death of the universe. Polygnotus (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the recent addition to the lead is POV pushing plain and simple. It has been turned into a "prominent controversy" by the two primary editors over the last year through what appears to be a concerted effort to paint this organization in a negative light. I have been checking in periodically on this article since User:Polygnotus posted on the NPOV notice board asserting this organization was a "weird cult" (Hardly Neutral). I tried to make some completely reasonable neutral and sourced edits that were reverted almost immediately and personally lost any enthusiasm for trying to improve the article. In the last year, this article has been bent in a highly negative direction. Rather than engage other editors as collaborators, two editors, Polygnotus and Avatar317, have pushed their negative POV of Landmark removing sourced material from the article that doesn't conform to this POV. This has taken place while while Polygnotus bites newbies, makes uncivil and personal attacks on other editors, and claims that other editors have COI without evidence. I do not think they have been editing in good faith. This really warrants an RFC. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Elmmapleoakpine: If you make accusations you better have some WP:DIFFs. Accusations without evidence are no better than personal attacks. So lets see the diffs. Polygnotus (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have been checking in periodically on this article since User:Polygnotus posted on the NPOV notice board Interesting. That was September 2023 but according to your contribution list you were already defending Landmark in August 2009. It is 2024. Polygnotus (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, and to be clear, and contrary to the editor's statement in the history recent edit that was made to the lead section was not made from consensus. I support an RfC on this article. Coalcity58 (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Last time the wider community took a look at these articles a bunch of Landmark sock- and meatpuppets got banned. An RFC would not make sense, but I already predicted another ARBCOM case which might be a good idea. Polygnotus (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Coalcity58: even when you feel you are righting great wrongs you can't just editwar to get your way. You will get blocked. What is your relationship with Landmark? Polygnotus (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is partially related to the documentary, but is also covered in the 2011 book The New Heretics of France by Susan J. Palmer. I'm not quite sure how to add this, but I added it to Jean-Marie Abgrall's page a while back (because it's related to my interest in the Solar Temple); I do feel like the fact they bribed a cult expert to declare them not a cult to be relevant information about their tactics so to speak. This page is very intimidating to edit so I'm not sure how I feel about adding it myself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good point, that would indeed be a great addition. It may also be contrasted with how they treated that other cult expert, Margaret Singer. Bullying a grandmother is not a good look. See the litigation archive. Polygnotus (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Polygnotus I tried to add it. Might not have done very well but hey. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PARAKANYAA Excellent, thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PARAKANYAA What do you think about this edit? Perhaps not everyone knows who Guyard is. Polygnotus (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Polygnotus That makes sense, I edited it to be clearer as well. I think the auditing may have been in the late 90s, since that's when they were taken off the list, and they only paid him later?? the sources are unclear I may have to watch the documentary later since IIRC he talks about it there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, unrelated, but the reason I said Guyard commission instead of Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France is that there were actually three "Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France", of which we only have an article on one for some reason. Guyard is the 1995 one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It could be interesting to look for sources for the other two. I think "the 1995 Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France" is easier to grok than "the Guyard commission". There is also activity on a European level btw. I'll take a look. Polygnotus (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough as long as we specify the year. That whole page is kind of a mess. Someday I'll rewrite it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observations on 67 patients who took Erhard Seminars Training

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronology: you are correct.

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

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