Talk:Landmark Worldwide
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Landmark Worldwide article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
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 is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal discussions about the subject. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal discussions about the subject at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 September 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Landmark Worldwide. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
|
Accusations of Being a Cult & Marketing Practices
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You have not answered my question. But you get some points for a marginally creative dodge. Coalcity58 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I hate unloading the dishwasher. Polygnotus (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- You have not answered my question. But you get some points for a marginally creative dodge. Coalcity58 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
@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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Yet another edit war sigh
[edit]@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)
Should probably mention the Abgrall bribery scandal from the documentary
[edit]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)
- 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)
- @Polygnotus I tried to add it. Might not have done very well but hey. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA Excellent, thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA What do you think about this edit? Perhaps not everyone knows who Guyard is. Polygnotus (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @Polygnotus I tried to add it. Might not have done very well but hey. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Citation style
[edit]The citation style used here drives me mad. it's inconsistent, and also a mixture of short form and long form citations, which can be justified sometimes for sources that aren't paginated but we are using them inconsistently with no rhyme and reason for whether they are or aren't paginated. Some of the sources are in the footnotes section, some are in the references section, some are in both duplicated, some are in one when they should be both. While given the contentious nature of the topic I can see why quotes are needed even more contentious topics don't have quotes on everything, much less free to read online news articles that you can click on (and maybe the same problem could be dealt with by holding POV pushers to account). Is anyone in agreement with me that there is an issue here? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: I had to use wikEdDiff to see what actually changed. Of course more consistency is always good. Have you seen https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Sub-referencing ? They say it will be made available soon. Polygnotus (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus "soon" can mean many things for the WMF. Could be six months could be ten years. Not holding out hope.
- As far as I see it, the standardization options we have are
- 1 - Standardize as sfns (harvnbs for citations that need quotes, which we should only be using for offline sources). The page uses a handful of these. Has the advantage of being able (with harvnb tags) to use multiple quotes for different references, however using non-paginated sources with this is weird to me
- 2 - standardize with r templates. I personally do not like r templates, but they are usable, and what most of the page uses already.
- 3 - mix of either r or sfns for paginated sources and long cites for non paginated ones, e.g. web sources. For an example of what this looks like with sfns, see any of the Order of the Solar Temple pages which I have worked on. Some people hate this, but I think it looks good
- I would contribute to this page more if it didn't use the most cursed referencing ever. I am willing to do work to get it to whatever we want to standardize on, but we have to choose something. I personally would prefer option 3 with sfns. Thoughts?
- I also think we should cut down on the amount of quotes, especially for free to read online sources. For ones that are offline or hard to access it makes sense but do we need a quote for the ones that you can read in a click? The whims of bad faith editors should not make it so we have to include a massive quote on every. single. reference. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Very true. I was led to believe it would happen this year, but no guarantees! I am here as a lightning rod for Avatar317; I haven't actually done anything with the article except remove some WP:PROMO. @Avatar317: what do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am the one who has included quotes on every. single. reference. - that is my work; my reason being that in contentious articles like this I have often seen well supported text removed by those who don't like it, (maybe IP editors) and withOUT source quotes, uninvolved editors who are unfamiliar with the topic are unlikely to revert such removals unless the supporting text (the quote) is readily available in the viewable diff. Articles like this often see NON-good faith edits, where an editor will remove something with an edit summary like "not supported in the source" when in fact it is clearly and indisputably supported in the source.
- Yes, the citations are inconsistent. The inconsistent style is something I was hoping to fix, and had thought of moving to sfn style (because of my (over)use of quotes), but editor Grayfell had commented that the r style is easier for new editors, so I hadn't gotten around to consistentifying the references.
- The reason for the reference mess, from what I've seen from the ancient history of this article, is that a lot of this article (before I came to it) was written WP:BACKWARDS, whereby someone added a statement, and later people would add "sources" and then someone else would move those sources around.
- Maybe choice 3 above? The Footnotes and References sections do need cleanup, and I never got around to de-duplicating those sections.
- Thanks for your help here! ---Avatar317(talk) 19:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- One additional comment: in comparison to the Order of the Solar Temple article, about a group with ~70 DEATHS from mass suicides means that there have probably been 10-100x the number of academic investigations into that group, vs. Landmark with >2M attendees and 0 known deaths. Most of the mentions in academic sources I have found on Google Books have been just mere mentions of Landmark as to where or what type of org it is classified as. There is some Israeli study specifically on the group, and the book Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training, but other than those, I've not seen academic research for which the entire focus of the work was a study of Landmark. ---Avatar317(talk) 21:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- There used to be an article about this courtcase. https://horizonsmagazine.com/blog/estate-of-jack-slee-vs-werner-erhard-death-during-est-training-set-a-precedent-for-the-james-ray-lawsuits/ There were also a bunch of psychotic breakdowns attributed to the Landmarkians but they were mostly mine I think.
Polygnotus (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Avatar317: Here ya go: Estate of Jack Slee v. Werner Erhard. Look at that AfD... now where do I remember those names from... Polygnotus (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Psychiatric disturbances associated with Erhard Seminars Training: I. A report of cases
- Psychiatric disturbances associated with Erhard Seminars Training: II. additional cases and theoretical considerations
- Observations on 67 patients who took Erhard Seminars Training
- A psychotic episode following Erhard Seminars Training. Polygnotus (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Given the apparent bias AGAINST Landmark displayed by Polygnotus, Avatar317 and now PARANKANYAA, I feel compelled to question the intent of your edits. You found four abstracts from 1977 about participants in the now defunct est training - one of which even says that of 49 patients in treatment, 30 showed positive movement in their therapy following their participation. What point are you trying to make? You've moved the article from a balanced piece that includes mention of past controversy to one that has become heavily weighted with obscure references alleging evil intent. These arguments and citations all seem designed to prove a point - but nowhere have you been willing to state the rationale behind your continuing efforts. What are you trying to prove? Ndeavour (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Facepalm Thanks for dropping by after 5 months to let us know your opinion. Polygnotus (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And thank you for once again refusing to account for your point of view and engage in any discussion of it. Ndeavour (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Check out the Wikipedia:Task Center for suggestions on how to improve Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
Documentary notability
[edit]For context there was a deletion discussion in 2014 that came to the consensus to merge the documentary to this article. See here. This article was an utter disaster so honestly I can't blame anyone for deleting it, it was a coatrack where almost none of the sources in the article actually talked about the documentary, it had random unsourced asides about the BLPs contained in the documentary, was full of OR and was generally a disaster (also the writer was later topic banned from NRMs and alleged NRMs). However I think it might be notable and an article about it that doesn't suck can be written. I just want to see what people think of these.
Some sources were brought up in the nomination that were not yet in the article, but, they were assessed as merely pre-release pieces which is not true (for some of them). For the purposes of notability we can count all the lawsuit related pieces about the eff/google as one source, though there are a lot of them, so I am not going to address those.
Here are the sources brought up in the afd and my assessment
- Le Parisien - short statement, pre release announcement), doesn't cover content that well so not helpful, maybe good for a few details
- Le Point short but still evaluative imo, better than the above piece, contributes to notability i think, but not amazing
- L'humanite provides context, sigcov, but little evaluation on the documentary
- Le Soir not very long, but an actual review with commentary, and definitely long enough to be sigcov.
- Huffpost there is sigcov but this is kind of weirdly personal so idk how we would use it in the article
I am pretty decent at finding French sources, so are additional reviews/sources I have found:
- a 450 word piece from Le Monde, probably the most reliable paper in France; not very evaluative annoyingly, but discusses it and the context
- this from tele-satellite, reliable and sigcov but not very evaluative
- about a one paragraph mention in The New Heretics of France (OUP book) about a different lawsuit that resulted from this documentary, not sigcov but interesting
- some sigcov (partly about the censorship admittedly, but some not) in a phd thesis (?)
- retrospective article from telerama in 2010, discusses the documentary and its effects on Landmark in France, listing it among "The documentaries that changed the world"
It's not really a pressing need but I think an article that doesn't suck could be written from it. Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I read the AfD you linked (the third attempt). I don't know whether it would be worth (re-)creating an article about the documentary; I think it would be easier/better to improve/grow the current paragraphs we have in THIS article, as the notability of that specific documentary in itself is still probably borderline notable. A large bit of the publicity/notability that the documentary received (at least in the US) was because of Landmark's attempt to suppress the internet distribution of it, the Streisand effect.
- The US sources I've seen document Landmark's attempts to suppress the wider internet distribution of the video because it was critical of them, even though they had no copyright to the content, which is why the EFF got involved and why Landmark withdrew its case. The fact that Landmark had no IP rights to the documentary, yet they were suing as if they did purely to suppress negative publicity, should be elaborated on and explained in this article, and was part of the motivation for the creation of the Anti-SLAPP laws.
- We might be able to find some legal sources (not court cases but papers by legal scholars) which mention this case as a motivation for the Anti-SLAPP laws.
- Here's an LA Times source (listed in the AfD discussion) [1]. ---Avatar317(talk) 17:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Popular culture
[edit]Should each article have its own popular culture section, or should we consolidate all of it in EST and The Forum in popular culture? I think chronologically its EST => The Forum => Landmark Forum => Landmark Worldwide.
We got EST_and_The_Forum_in_popular_culture#Six_Feet_Under and Landmark_Worldwide#In_popular_culture. Polygnotus (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Chronology: you are correct.
- Consolidation: it is already consolidated in that article, I put this here as a mini-excerpt, rather than a "See also" link since that article was not linked from this one. But we could just have a "See also" link if you'd rather. ---Avatar317(talk) 01:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest I don't really have an opinion on what is best, and I am not even sure what the convention is on Wikipedia. I think this is fine, because the {{main}} template is similar (in function) to a "See also" link. I was thinking more along the lines of renaming the article to make it more clear that it also encompasses Landmark, but that is probably a bad idea because it would end up with a very long and clunky title like Est and The Forum and Landmark in popular culture or Werner Erhards New Religious Movements in popular culture or whatever. Polygnotus (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
RfC - regarding the neutrality of this article
[edit]![]() |
|
Has the neutrality of this article been improved or compromised, by changes made since the lifting of Discretionary Sanctions in February 2022? Current:Landmark Worldwide Feb 2022: [2] Diff[3] DaveApter (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Dave, I recognize that you've dedicated two decades to removing negative information from Landmark-related articles on Wikipedia. While I respect your level of commitment, I respectfully suggest that redirecting our energies to other pursuits may be more beneficial for all parties going forward. More than 620297171 seconds (172304 hours, 7179 days) have passed since you first started pov-pushing and you are still unhappy with what you've achieved. If you are looking for a way to help Wikipedia, check out the Wikipedia:Task Center. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- On the RFC question, I think that some of the changes are fine, and others might benefit from some review, but I doubt that it's perfect. For example, the lead says this group is called a cult because it pressures current customers to recruit future customers. If that's the standard for a cult, then Melaleuca is a cult. If enthusiasm is enough to earn that label, then Tupperware is a cult. (As Dave Barry wrote, Tupperware dealers give standing ovations for plastic dishes.) There's more to being a cult than recruiting, and I don't feel like that is explained well in the body of the article.
- But overall, I would not say that the article is worse now than it was then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the reason it is considered a cult by some can be worded better. The reason is that it meets certain criteria. Polygnotus (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- What are the criteria you are referring to and what are the reliable sources that state that?Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd like to hear some specifics about those 'criteria' as well. Coalcity58 (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the reason it is considered a cult by some can be worded better. The reason is that it meets certain criteria. Polygnotus (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't a neutral RFC. For the past several years I've contributed to discussions about the many problems with this article, and DaveApter has, superficially at least, accepted these comments. To now imply that the old version was better basically ignores those past discussions. It's honestly a bit difficult to assume good faith for this kind of behavior. To restate what I said last year, the article is significantly improved from where it was in past years. Obviously, as with every article, there is still plenty of room for improvement, but this improvement would be much better discussed based on specific and actionable proposals. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah the goal of the RFC appears to be to punish Avatar317 and others who worked hard to improve this article. Can we just close bad-faith RfCs or what is the procedure? Polygnotus (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Cult explanation in body
[edit]Rather than discuss this in the RfC I'll start a new section:
@WhatamIdoing: What do you feel like is lacking in the BODY about the cult explanation? (I'm not saying you are wrong in any way.) Should we include what experts say are some central/defining features of cults? The current body statement Several commentators unrelated to Landmark have stated that because it has no single central leader, is a secular (non-religious) organization, and it tries to unite (and re-unite) participants with their family and friends (rather than isolate them) that it does not meet many of the characteristics of a cult.
lists characteristics of cults but in the negative, (why Landmark isn't) which may be confusing...should we have a preceding statement listing the common characteristics of cults? (There is enough sourcing to do that.)
Do you have any other suggestions?
Additionally, here's what I see as a complication: Landmark has been described in media as having a public reputation as a "cultISH" organization, and that reputation seems to be more among the general public than among scholars; scholars have characterized it variously: NRM, etc., and many scholars have explicitly said that it does not meet cult characteristics, though Landmark did get kicked out of France and listed as a cult there.
Maybe once we improve the body wording, it will be easier to apply a concision function to that for the lead statements. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
many scholars
Who are we talking about? Singer said she did not consider it a cult after getting sued, but also thatshe would not recommend the group to anyone, and would not comment on whether Landmark used coercive persuasion for fear of legal recrimination from Landmark.
And Abgrall got a decent sum of money:Abgrall wrote a report on the organization arguing that they were not a cult, arguing that they were a "harmless organization", though did conclude by recognizing that the group may have had some warning signs. They were removed from the list; from the period of 2001 to 2002 Abgrall had been paid €45,699.49 by Landmark.
. We could also count Jensen, although he does not claim to be an expert in this matter he is a scholar, but Jensen credits Landmark with restoring the relationship with his daughter so I don't think he is independent.had taken a Landmark course in Boston at the suggestion of his daughter, who mended a rocky relationship with Dr. Jensen after taking the course herself.
Pretty much every independent scholar considers it an NRM. People in academia don't really use the word "cult", they use "New Religious Movement". I don't think we have to include a list of defining features of a cult, that would be more ontopic in the article cult. We can simply say it meets certain criteria which is why some people and organizations consider it to be a cult, and it does not meet others which is why some disagree. Its a bit like the DSM, you don't have to check all the boxes in order to get a label. Polygnotus (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)- What I noticed was much simpler than that. The lead says:
- Landmark has sometimes been described a cult, because of their attempts to convert participants to a new worldview and their recruitment tactics: they do not use advertising, but instead pressure participants during courses to recruit relatives and friends as new customers.
- but Landmark Worldwide#Accusations of being a cult says nothing about "attempts to convert", "a new worldview", "recruitment tactics", "advertising", "pressuring participants", or "recruiting relatives and friends".
- There are complaints in the article about (e.g.,) recruiting pressure, but those complaints are not related to being a cult. It may be true (and explained in the body) that they have sometimes been described as a cult. It may be true (and explained in the body) that they try to change people's ways of thinking and pressure paying customers into recruiting more customers. But there's no "because of" in the body to connect the parts of this sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Sorry, I should be more clear. I agree with you, in the RfC section above, and here I responded to Avatar317's use of the words "many scholars". I did dive into the sources and for example people like Dinesh Bhugra (a well-known expert) describe Landmark as a NRM (in Psychiatry and Religion Context, Consensus and Controversies). Looking at the Sociology sources, the large majority uses "NRM". The only exceptions I can find is Renee Lockwood who describes Landmark as a
corporate religious form
, areligio-spiritual corporation
and acorporate religion
(which is less standard terminology). Outside of academia everyone (journalists, writers, cult experts, every Tom, Dick and Harry) uses "cult". If we want to give a reason why it is considered a cult, which I am not sure it is necessary, then it would be that it meets certain criteria to be classified as such. But its probably easier to leave that out. Polygnotus (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)- We could separate the two halves of the sentence. Instead of "it's called a cult because recruiting pressure", we could say "It's called a cult. Also, there's recruiting pressure." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Polygnotus (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps the next editor (whether you or someone else) who thinks this would be an improvement would implement that change. It should be pretty simple just to split it into two sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Polygnotus (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- We could separate the two halves of the sentence. Instead of "it's called a cult because recruiting pressure", we could say "It's called a cult. Also, there's recruiting pressure." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Sorry, I should be more clear. I agree with you, in the RfC section above, and here I responded to Avatar317's use of the words "many scholars". I did dive into the sources and for example people like Dinesh Bhugra (a well-known expert) describe Landmark as a NRM (in Psychiatry and Religion Context, Consensus and Controversies). Looking at the Sociology sources, the large majority uses "NRM". The only exceptions I can find is Renee Lockwood who describes Landmark as a
- Articles with connected contributors
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- C-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- C-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
- Low-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
- San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- C-Class company articles
- Low-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- C-Class education articles
- Low-importance education articles
- WikiProject Education articles
- C-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- C-Class New religious movements articles
- High-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists
- Wikipedia requests for comment