You are promoting a false notion that the connection from Werner Erhard to Landmark has been removed from the article when in fact the lead of the article has always explicitly mentioned that Landmark evolved from materials purchased from Werner Erhard What has been in discussion here is your use of negatively charged language to describe those materials  Regarding religion its telling that you throw a blizzard of sources and quotes onto this talk page and yet you still cant find reliable sources to make the case you want to make You begin with Barker who simply puts Landmark as one name in an extremely long list As Ive noted to you many times before Barker has said repeatedly that she puts human potential movements on her NRM lists not because she thinks they are necessarily religious but she wants them to remain within her field of study This academic inclusiveness is fine for her but more than problematic for us as a describer of what is actually religious  Many of your other proofs also involve similar scholars putting Landmarks name as one in a long list often tellingly referring to est rather than Landmark or proving their only passing familiarity with Landmark by getting its name wrong as some of your sources do here  Its telling that the one source that seems to fully make the case that you want to make is not a reliable one  its from someone who is not a credentialled scholar and doesnt belong as a source to any Wikipedia article Moreover its telling that this inexpert source argues in this paper against the claims made by reliable sources that Landmark is not religious in nature and that even she cant actually make an argument that Landmark contains any overt religious elements rather she argues that the intense cathartic emotional experiences resemble the experience of religious revelation  that profound selfactualization is the modern equivalent of religious enlightenment This modern religion of the self theory which does an end run around requiring anything relating to god or the supernatural to call something religious is a minority POV inside religious scholarship  Another long quote you provide shows how this minority POV selfreligion theory works  it defines attempts to find the sources and potential for development and meaning in life simply from within the individual from one of your sources as inherently religious This is a startling claim on the face of it and while interesting isnt supported by the majority of scholars In fact most top scholars support a definition of new religious movements which involves explicitly religious groups with specific belief in deities andor supernatural entities I put together a chart by top scholar of their views on NRM definitions after the last RFC on the list of NRMs talk page  httpsenwikipediaorgwikiTalkListofnewreligiousmovements  The only scholar or two whose definitions could include personal development companies like Landmark are again those who use a broad definition of any philosophical group that they wish to study Again this is fine for study its not fine for encyclopedic definitions Chryssides makes a lengthy and explicit case for why Landmark is not religious in nature and yet he has them on a list because he wants to study them This alone should make one pause from making claims about groups based on their inclusion in such lists