Talk:Landmark Worldwide
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theLandmark Worldwide article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32Auto-archiving period:30 days  |
 | The subject of this article iscontroversial 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, use the talk page to discuss them.Content must be written from aneutral point of view. Includecitations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This page isnot a forum for general discussion about personal discussions about the subject. Any such commentsmay be removed orrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal discussions about the subject at theReference desk. |
 | Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous was nominated fordeletion.The discussion was closed on23 September 2014 with a consensus tomerge. Its contents weremerged intoLandmark Worldwide. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please seeits history; for its talk page, seehere. |
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipediacontributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may includeconflict of interest,autobiography, andneutral point of view.
|
|
IsUndue Weight being given to the issue of "Cult accusations" in the light of the references cited in support of these claims?DaveApter (talk)15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
experts believe this characterisation to be fair"? I did not see anybody named - "expert" or not - in the cited refs (relevant extracts quoted recently a little higher up this page). Furthermore, almost all of the writers went on to say that in their opinion, it was 'not a cult. Did I miss something? Did you actually read those refs?DaveApter (talk)12:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
she would not recommend the group to anyone, and would not comment on whether Landmark used coercive persuasion for fear of legal recrimination from Landmark.and one is an economist who credits Landmark with restoring the relationship with his daughter and is therefore not independent. Turns out Abgrall says he never expressed an opinion one way or the other in the documentary (and he got paid over 45.000 euro by Landmark). Every independent commentator calls it either a cult or a New Religious Movement (a newer term that some sociologists use).Polygnotus (talk)23:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting pattern. Accounts lay dormant, often for months, and suddenly there is a flurry of activity where they all show up to support eachother. Not suspicious at all.Original here. Time is a flat circle.Polygnotus (talk)21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed that this RfC has generated so much in the way of accusations and aspersions, and so little discussion of how to address the question within the framework of Wikipedia's policies. In particular, the relevant section of theWP:NPOV policy states:
*Avoid statingopinions asfacts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significantopinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should beattributed in the text to particular sources
.
Undoubtedly, some people do hold the opinion that Landmark is a "Cult", but who are they? If they are no more than anonymous internet discussion commenters or bloggers, do they deserve this prominence in an encyclopedia? If they are notable individuals, then it should be possible to findreliable sources who identify them and attribute the opinion to them. None of the existing references do so. Several assertions have been made in the foregoing discussion for which no sources have been offered, for example:"Various sources, including some cult-experts, have characterised it as cultish, cult-like, etc."
So what are these sources and who are these cult-experts? I could not find either of these terms - 'cultish' or 'cult-like' in any of the refs.DaveApter (talk)13:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done Landmark's programsand
have participated for quite some time, but perhaps (since the word "worldwide" is in the name) your experience differs from that of others? I am happy for you that you had a positive experience, but other people have a more negative opinion and experience and there is no reason to exclude them (or to pretend their opinions are based on "gossip").Polygnotus (talk)18:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about gossip?The Ndeavour account did.
I certainly did not.Your account did. And giving the experiences and opinions of those you disagree with the weight of gossip would certainly be a form of
discounting the opinions or experiences of others.Polygnotus (talk)17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read where anyone is saying that the accusation against Landmark be removed - rather that it be acknowledged and given the weith of gossip. Put in perspective.Treating the accusation as gossip is discounting the experience of others.Polygnotus (talk)19:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harley-Davidson, Inc. (H-D, or simply Harley) is a shockingly incompetent American manufacturer of the worst motorcycles ever builtin a Wikipedia article, although that that opinion is factually correct. Thanks for the pings; I checked their userpages and I have asked ProfGray to take a look atEfrat (organization).Polygnotus (talk)18:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just made an edit to the 'Accusations of being a cult' section to more accurately express what the sources say, and it was instantly reverted without explanation even before I could finish correcting the citations. It seems clear to me that the article is being guarded against any edits that do not reflect a certain point of view.Coalcity58 (talk)22:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The extent of the coverage of the "cult" issue is not undue, in light of the sources. I do think, however, that the placement is undue (at least inthe version that is current as I write). The introductory section should be, well, introductory. It should give the reader a quick overview of the subject.Polygnotus writes, "Hiding all negative information in a section near the bottom of an article is discouraged." I agree. The opposite extreme, however, is to launch right into a discussion of the pros and cons of the accusation. It's too much detail for the intro section. I would rewrite the second graf along these lines:
My editing one of the other sentences in the graf doesn't mean that I think it should be that prominent. That sentence and the rest of that graf should be moved to the detailed subsection.
Incidentally, that "Accusations of being a cult" subsection summarizes the substance of the accusations (maybe "characterizations" would be more neutral) and summarizes the actions taken by Landmark in response, but it's light on summarizing the substance of Landmark's response. Surely Landmark has issued some statements along the lines of "Here's why we're not a cult"? If so, the subsection should be improved, not by deleting any of what's there, but by paying more attention to Landmark's side of the merits of the question.JamesMLane t c00:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. It's not a cult. Cults take you away from people and try to make you cut people off. Landmark encourages you to reach out to other people who you see their lives not going as they want-it and see if the course helps them. Everybody's journey through the course is different. And they have other followup classes you can get enlightenment in new areas.I can see how that might look like a "cult" to an outsider but it's for two entirely different reasons. The other reason is after you take the class you'll move on to more challenging things in life. And friends who are content in not moving anywhere in life and just complain become boring energy killers. You thusly move on two different wave lengths. Ofcourse if they take the class and you can hold frank discussions with them on anything and they no longer get offended, that's when that relationship shifts again.108.20.240.158 (talk)19:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a new version of the article, based on a previous version that I've updated with material from the current one. I'd like to invite everyone to take a look, make suggestions, and have a collaborative conversion for improving it. The new version is in my sandbox, which can be viewed here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coalcity58/sandboxCoalcity58 (talk)21:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll choose to concur with User:Polygnotus a bunch. The current version is the starting point; everything else is merely nostalgia, copyvio, and attribution error. Creating an entirely new draft utilizing existing, old, and found sources, THAT would constitute a reasonablenew starting point.BusterD (talk)15:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under the rules of Wikipedia. Anything on wikipedia that makes a claim especially any far reaching claims needs references under the rules ofWikipedia:Reliable sources. If theres' so called scholars who believe that Landmark is a religion it should be well referenced under the rules of Wikipedia. They at least one or two should be on the record here so folks can critique their work. Under the rules of Wikipedia anything not properly reference and attributed may be deleted asWP:OR.Someone claimed this? Well who? At least one or two should be on the record to show who claimed this?Many companies & institutions[6] like NASA, Reebok[7], Lockhed Martin, Johnson & Johnson, and others offer their employees the option to take classes at Landmark's alternate corporate name VANTO Group.[8] Why would the HR of those big companies send people to a "cult"? Or religious body? Most "cults" seek to isolate people from others, their family, their friends etc. What would HR at those companies get out of that? Your wild claims need references.CaribDigita (talk)07:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removedthis bit.
That says there was a "study" and explicitly mentions his job.
But looking at what he actually wrote there was no study (only 4 pages of text wherein he writes about himself), and he didn't just show up (ideally "undercover"); they requested his presence. We have an article about him,Raymond D. Fowler, and he says itdoes not in any way reflect the views of any university or organization with which I am or have been associated. I am not submitting this report as a representative of any organization
so it is misleading to use his job title.
https://www.psychegames.com/landmark-education.htm saysRaymond D. Fowler, PhD, who observed sessions of the Landmark Forum, wrote in a report commissioned by Landmark Education
...
He certainly didn't have to pay, and they knew he was coming and would write a report about his experiences.
At the request of the Landmark Education Corporation, I undertook an evaluation of the effectiveness, safety and appropriateness of the procedures followed in conducting the Landmark Forum program.
Later Fowler was asked if he was paid but he refused to answer.[9]
And according to that same page Landmark had a good reason to want such a report:But this is not as bad as professional authority selling out. Raymond Fowler, Ph.D., executive vice-president and CEO of the American Psychological Association, wrote a report declaring Landmark seminars harmless and having nothing to do with psychotherapy. (If they had, their unqualified purveyors could be arrested, not to mention having their pants sued off them.)
which explains why the text is so awkward.Polygnotus (talk)03:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here because I've been trying to helpWell, I am sorry, but you are not helping. If you want to help, we got 6 million articles where you can have a positive impact. If you want to contribute to those articles and you need some advice, let me know and I'll be happy to help. Unsure where to start? I can point you in the right direction. But we gotta stop making the same moves on the same chessboard. And since Wikipedia is not going to change its NPOV policy, the Landmarkians are going to have to accept that reliable sources have published information about Landmark that they consider to be negative. And move on. And stop beating the dead horse.Polygnotus (talk)15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having been acused of "canvassing" when I went to find editors to take a look here, I've done what I consider to be a deep dive into how to bring the uncivility and lack of responses to the attention of others with standing in the Wikipedia community. I've initiated a new issue on the ANI, and I have also notified the user it concerns. I'm not happy that we weren't able to resolve differences of opinion here and that I felt forced to operate this way - but my intention is to bring the eyes of others who I expect to be objective in the matter.Ndeavour (talk)15:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)—Ndeavour (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
