User talk:Albert8879

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Werner Erhard. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to your edits at Landmark Worldwide, but the material has to be sourced there as well. It may be a better idea to use the article's talk page to propose edits, and more experienced editors will assist you with sourcing. Kuru (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry I only just saw this apologies. I am new to this will look into that and look at your guidelines more carefully Albert8879 (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And will be more cautious it's just that Landmark has ruined a lot of people's lives and nearly ruined mine and not enough people understand how dangerous they are to vulnerable neurodivergent people like me. Albert8879 (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find more credible sources. I guess the issue is that many mainstream media sites do not understand how to report on cults and lack critical analysis and so it's mostly reliant on testimonials from survivors on forums and blogs.

But I think there are some credible ones I can use which are not blogs. Albert8879 (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask is it also an issue of getting lawsuits from Landmark that is the problem? Albert8879 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I know they initimidate a lot of media platforms and have aggressive litigation tactics. Albert8879 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what was wrong with the Lululemon and Panda Express references too since they were legitimate sources? Albert8879 (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Just want to ask if anyone knows what the standard is when it comes to including testimonials as citations? As there are many on Rick Ross' Cult Education website for example.

I just wonder if exceptions can be made because the mainstream media reporting of Landmark can be very faulty. As in no real understanding of cult dynamics, coercive control techniques and some journalists who are sceptical and want to investigate them, do the course and then even they think it's great because they don't understand how they've been covertly influenced.

I'm thinking in particular of examples like the Amelia Hill Observer piece which was meant to be an 'investigation' and  really ended up being a puff piece for Landmark effectively (I sent a readers complaint to Observer and sadly no response).

So if anyone could help me on what the parameters are that would be great as very new to editing, just started yesterday.

I understand there's an rationale to have balanced reporting, but I want to argue here with organisations like Landmark they will use any material even lukewarm responses as justification they are not a cult. Which only legitimises them and makes them more harmful to people who don't understand how cult abuse works either (which is a lot of people, most people only think cults are mostly religious or new age groups that feature the salacious aspects the media is interested in e.g. mass murder, suicide or kidnapping, underage sexual abuse, drig taking, polygamy or aliens etc etc like the Manson family, The People's Temple, Heavens Gate, Scientology, Children of God etc etc).

So I believe there's a need for people to better understand that cults can look like innocuous personal development programmes for young aspirational entrepreneurs etc.

Sorry know that was a bit of a rant! Can you tell I'm an cult awareness advocate... Albert8879 (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also understand as I've said to Kuru that there may be legal repurcussions that Wikipedia doesn't have the resources to deal with as Landmark are aggressive litigators.

But I hope there's a way around this or compromise so that Wikipedia can also be a source of accurate and life saving information on abusive organisations. Albert8879 (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been unclear. This is you user talk page. No one is going to see it unless they've recent interacted with you. You will want to open a discussion at the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]