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. |
To-do list for Landmark Worldwide:
|
I am not really convinced that there is any merit to including this section at all - surely any business that has been operating for several decades is likely to have been involved in a handful of lawsuits? Why is this significant enough to include in the article? In any event there were definitely smears and insinuations in this section that are non-encyclopedic in tone. I have edited the first sentence to be less clumsy and convoluted. I have removed the reference to the non-fact that Margaret Singer 'would not comment...'. I have clarified the wording regarding Rick Ross' statements so that it is clear that these are claims and opinions, rather than having them appear to be stating established facts. Also removed the weasel word 'purportedly'.
The opening paragraph recently added was problematic for several reasons. For one thing it deals with events prior to the formation of Landmark, but more importantly it contains much speculation and editorialising, as well as assertions for which the cited sources do not provide clear links to any primary information. I have condensed the relevant points.
If editors do not agree with these changes, please discuss here rather than resorting to edit-warring. Thank youo
DaveApter (
talk) 16:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This entire section was blanked without discussion or explanation on 7th November by a 'drive-by' editor with no previous (or subsequent) history of editing this page [1]. When it was restored four days after that, it was again deleted within one hour by Avatar317 [2].
That section is clearly relevant and adequately sourced. It has been in the article for over eight years without any suggestion here that it ought to be removed. In the course of recent civil discussions above Grayfell suggested that it needed some stylistic improvements, and I agreed and indicated that I would make some attempts at doing so, but there was no suggestion of removing it entirely. I suggest that it should be restored, unless anyone can provide a compelling reason otherwise. DaveApter ( talk) 16:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I have removed these two statements because I think that they mislead the reader about the findings. I was not able to find an online copy of the USC study: "Transforming the Network of Conversations in BHP New Zealand Steel", but some summary info is available on Landmark's site [
here].
During a period of several months, BHP New Zealand management asked Vanto Group to construct a consulting engagement that would result in much stronger teams and working relationships in the company, as well as greater ownership within the BHP workforce. The specific goal was an intervention that would complement other initiatives under way, including process improvement, reorganizations, and training on rational decision making. The Vanto Group change process was a critical part of an integrated change process that New Zealand Steel created and accelerated. Conclusion - The set of interventions in the organization produced impressive measurable results:
MY bolding. Note here that these results are attributable to BHP's OVERALL program, of which LEBD was a PART.
Unless the study states more clearly what results are attributable to Landmark's programs and which to BHP's, than stating the numbers here are misleading the reader and inappropriate
WP:SYNTH. ---
Avatar317
(talk) 01:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The statement "Landmark paid Erhard $3 million as an initial licensing fee, with additional payments over the next 18 years not to exceed $15 million." fails WP:V since it merely quotes the assertion made by the author of the NY Magazine article, who provides no reference or citation for the claim and therefore does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. Furthermore, this accusation is explicitly denied in sworn court documents from Landmark's legal counsel. DaveApter ( talk) 13:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but it’s my understanding that the intention behind it was to create a communal resource to capture history; that contributions are meant to be relatively scholarly and neutral – opinions are not only frowned upon, but edited out. In reading this page about Landmark, I am concerned that opinion has intruded in two areas.
First, placing the section “Accusations of being a cult” up high in the article lends a high weight to that section – in effect, expressing an opinion. If it must be included, then shift the section “Accusations of being a cult” to “Reception.” The accusations do exist, and I would leave it up to others to argue their validity.
But more the point, the very use of the term “cult” expresses a point of view that is less than scholarly, as can be seen throughout the Wikipedia article on “Cult” ( /info/en/?search=Cult#Usage_of_the_term_cult), Indeed, the initial sentence “Cult is a term, in most contexts, pejorative” is reiterated throughout the article. Interestingly enough, if Landmark was indeed widely recognized to fit that term, one would expect to see it in the extensive list in the article. And it does not appear. That in and of itself seems to me to be a comment on the inappropriate use of the term to describe a business that’s been a going concern since 1991. Ndeavour ( talk) 20:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
It should be noted that MANY sources talk about Landmark as being ACCUSED of being a cult, (and in Wikipedia we follow sources) and that is what we are saying in this article, not that they ARE a cult.
We aren't saying IN WIKIVOICE that they ARE a cult, we are instead stating what MULTIPLE RS's say: which is that lots of people have thought of them as a cult (they have a reputation among the public that way). If you don't like that, contact the reporters at the RS's. If they all issue corrections/changes to their articles, than we'll follow the revised sources.
I have not finished working my way through reading the sources in the "Scholars" section, but after I have finished that, a lead statement pertaining to this that I think is appropriate would be something like: "Because of reasons X, Y, and Z, Landmark has been accused of being a cult. (or maybe has a public perception as being a cult) However, sociologists and religious scholars that have studied it have stated that it does not fit the characteristics of a cult, and instead characterize it as a New Religious Movement (NRM), corporate religion, A, B, and a C, or [whatever best summarizes scholars' views]."--- Avatar317 (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)