text:
, and one that's mostly not used by the referenced sources, it's a fundamentally false claim, in that the media sources are NOT saying Landmark is cult-like - they are mentioning that certain other people think they are. This is a critical distinction - if the New York Times quotes somebody about an allegation, you can't say that the New York Times is making that allegation. It's completely deceptive and untrue. And, in fact, even the people quoted in the sources you give are mostly not saying Landmark is a cult. For instance, the most critical of your sources that I looked at, the Phoenix New Times article, quotes Landmark hater and anti-cult movement leader Rick Ross as saying that as much as he dislikes Landmark, he does not consider them a cult, at all. So if Rick Ross isn't even saying this, why have an edit saying newspapers are saying it?

 * Finally, there's your line about 'governments', which seems to be your source for adding claims about 'danger' to the article lead. The real danger here seems to be the misuse here of primary sources. All of the sources seem to come back to one thing: the French Commission list from the 90s, which was repeated in Belgium (their report having the same author) and was later briefly picked up by Austria, as far as I understand it. The French list, largely a work of two people who did not consult with any scholars or academics in the field, and which received intense criticism around the world, and was not renewed for that reason. A good source on this list is The New Heretics of France, which when I read it a couple of years ago helped cement my interest in this subject - I strongly recommend reading it. (By the way, even if we bought the validity of these lists, no list in the last 10 years has listed Landmark - the French Commission was disbanded over 15 years ago after intense criticism of it).

 * This is a textbook example of relying heavily on primary sources - there's no one giving detailed interpretation here, providing context (such as the problems I mentioned above). Before we make incendiary claims in the article, we need secondary sources for these claims that weigh any issues with the primary source, which is clearly not happening here - reliable secondary sources in the academic world basically say the French list is full of it. By the logic of this edit, we should discuss the cultic nature of the Quakers in the lead of the article, since they are on the same list. And for you to say that you are 'restoring prior consensus' by putting this lead, you are promoting a complete fiction - there was no prior consensus for that, at least as long as I've been following the article.

 * Some on Wikipedia have promoted such claims of the anti-cult movement, around the project and on this article in particular - in fact an editor and former administrator who I believe originally put in some of the material you re-inserted was topic banned from this area for POV pushing. But our articles should reflect the consensus of the academic community wherever possible, and the academic community and scholars of new religious movements holds the dubious creations of the anti-cult movement - fast 'coercive persuasion', government 'cult' lists, etc. - in extremely low regard.

 * Instead of putting these dubious claims in the article, there is actually well-sourced criticism of Landmark regarding their marketing practices that should be in the article - I think we had a line about the overzealousness of their marketing or some such that got removed somewhere along the way. That would be worth recovering. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 * You make a good point of "cult-like" not being properly attributed. The text should say something to the effect of: "A number of critical newspaper articles have reported complaints that the Forum is 'cult-like'".

 * You begin by arguing that the perspective offered by Stephen A. Kent, an expert in this area, should be removed from the article wholesale. You assert that Kent's view is "rejected by the academic community". The link you gave doesn't even mention Kent. Because all this seemed odd to me, I decided to investigate, and the first hit of my first google search led me to religiousfreedomwatch.org, a Scientology website. It contains an anti-Kent rant making much of the same points you make -- Margaret Singer and all. (I am not suggesting anyone here is connected to Scientology, only that the line of argumentation bears some resemblance.)

 * I am less than impressed with your characterization of Kent. It is not even clear that Kent represents a minority view, but even if that is true, it is still significant and thus should be included per WP:NPOV. WP:WEIGHT may be invoked to remove singular/negligible views, such as a claim that Landmark is run by reptilians, but not established views in scholarly literature.

 * You called the Swedish group FRI an "anti-cult organization", which is your own labeling. Even if a source is deemed biased, it may still be included if properly attributed. Opposition to Landmark as represented by FRI should be included per WP:NPOV. We wish to include all significant views, and lots of people oppose Landmark. This is not a singular/negligible view and therefore cannot be excluded per WP:WEIGHT.

 * There is at least one secondary source, Wright, for the text about governments. That governments have condemned the organization is very significant -- enough for the lead.

 * On Wikipedia we don't "promote" claims of any movement or organization. We simply report all significant points of view. Removing significant points of view is violation of NPOV, and for that reason your deletions are a violation of NPOV.

 * Manul ~ talk 06:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I am less then impressed with User:Nwlaw63's "welcome" to this article, the (WP:OWN dissertation on which views deserve zero weight, and lecture on what has been discussed here before. This topic went to ArbComm and one of the recommendations was encouraging uninvolved editors. This type of WP:OWN behavior does the opposite. I will pursue the new Discretionary Sanctions against editors who act in such inappropriate manners. It is clear that a group of editors here will use all tactics to bully out any editor that is not part of Team Landmark (being dragged to ArbComm after only two minor edits showed me that). Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please strikeout that remark which is a clear violation of the policies to assume good faith and to avoid personal attacks, and regarding which you have recently been warned on this page by . Thanks DaveApter (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The editor that dragged me to ArbComm trying to stop me from editing here as soon as I started - is the LAST person entitled to lecture me on AGF User:DaveApter. Legacypac (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Please refrain from personal attacks and discuss the edits at hand - discuss the edits, not the editor. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Given that NPOV is under discussion (again), I have tagged the article (again). --Tgeairn (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A few things:

Wright simply repeats the France list - there is no interpretation of the primary source. All Wright's doing is confirming the existence of the original source, which we already knew existed. The reason for a secondary source goes way beyond confirming the existence of the primary source, it's about putting it in context, which this fails completely to do. If you look at Wright's list, you will also see the notation of the Quakers, of all things, as a dangerous group, the absurdity of which gives a clue as to why the list was so heavily criticized by everyone from academics to the U.S. government. Of course it would be absurd to make mention of this in the lead of the Quakers article, yet you are arguing for using it for making a controversial claim in the lead of the Landmark article. Regarding Kent, you don't have to go to any blogs - simply read the work of leading scholars such as Dawson ("Raising Lazarus: A Methodological Critique of Stephen Kent's Revival of the Brainwashing Model", 2001), Melton, and Lewis to see the disdain Kent's contemporaries have for his work. And regarding the theory of coercive persuasion he's pushing in the quote, we only have to read our own article on the APA task force looking into the topic to see the rejection of this theory by mainstream sources. I'm also scratching my head as to why you're question my characterization of the Swedish group, since that's pretty much how you characterize it in your edit to the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 * There is no prohibition against careful use of primary sources. The material cited was not used to support anything beyond what the source said, and insisting on its removal is unwarranted. Regarding Kent, who seems to be a noted academic on the [faculty of a major university], it is equally unwarranted to characterize him as fringe using your own original research, which frankly seems to require huge leaps of logic to follow. He is a reliable source, period. Your argument here appears to be that the article ignore all coverage which conflicts with the reportage that you deem more significant and/or that conflicts with a narrative you prefer to present. If there is alternative coverage in reliable sources, then it is perfectly fine to also present that, but it is not OK to blank well-sourced material under various pretexts. • Astynax talk 19:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Remarkable degradation of this page
I have been gone for a while and just came back and am amazed by what a mess this page is right now. It has been totally trolled. I helped arbitrate getting this page back into policy and into a reasonable shape a few years ago and it does look like it has been torn apart. The above conversation by Spacefarer is RIGHT on the mark and any interested editor should carefully review that! Alex Jackl (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Page Integrity
I have re-looked at the pages here and there is a clear attack on this page. It has degraded in the accuracy of the facts on the page, the gutting of any actual relevant content, and an obvious non-adherence to Wikipedia's policies on POV, Fringe theory advocacy, notability of facts, and the complete elimination of content that does not support the recent editors' POV.

It may be so bad that the logical next step is to restore the page to a point in time before the fringe trollers started hitting it and then carefully managing it from that point on for balance and relevance, etc. I am not sure that I want to do that too quickly and I will check with some Admins I know to make sure I don't do anything too abrupt.

I would love to hear some commentary on that idea- especially from experienced Wikipedians who have seen this kind of trolling behavior before- and ways to move forward to pull this page out of the mess it is in.

Thank you, Alex Jackl (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please be a bit more specific? "The accuracy of the facts"? "Fringe theory advocacy"? "The complete elimination of content that does not support the recent editors' POV"? I have read that it is (or was) your opinion that Landmark "is certainly not a 'new religious movement'". Is that still your opinion on this topic? What kind of 'mess' do you refer to? Personally I am suspicious of Wikipedia articles afflicted by more than five footnotes (those articles are nearly always the product of OR, unbalanced all the way through, and ludicrously twisted by POV-pushing from both sides). In my view, encyclopedic articles should not be equipped with a critical apparatus - that belongs to the realm of (original) research, and rightly so. In an encyclopedia I prefer a good selection of widely acknowledged notable sources - the best that can be found - which provide the facts and the framework.(I know my opinion is a minority viewpoint.) Anyway, could we agree upon the sources that have the notability and the quality to provide the article's facts and framework? I think, that would be the best way to move forward. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Response to Tiger and Reversion
Yes- I am looking at the content of the article prior to the surge of what I would consider to be vandalism over the last six months. I generally agree with your view point, Theobold. One of the things I struggle with over all of Wikipedia is how do you manage the distortion that gets created by multiple-POVs "wrangling " over a page. It is hard to sort through unless you are an expert on the subject matter and then if you state any conclusive statements you are then attacked for being POV. Very challenging.

Just in the last day an anonymous user went into the page and then added a series of clearly negative POV comments designed to press the POV they are advocating. I have reverted it to the pre-vandalism copy form yesterday but that is not a long term solution to do that back and forthing. This is not about this page in specific but about any Wikipedia article where there is either trolling or extreme advocacy.

Thanks for the comments     Alex Jackl (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2015

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There seems to be a good-faith disagreement on what this article should be about, the company or the products. If any resolution is found on that, a new move request might be submitted. One editor mentioned concern about COI, but it's unclear how that would affect a move discussion one way or the other. Their web site doesn't make their real name easy to discern. The URL is http://landmarkworldwide.com but the contact information wants you to write to 'Landmark'. The copyright notice says that the owner is 'Landmark Worldwide'. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide → Landmark Forum – The current official product name and the most recognized COMMONNAME for this topic. Ties into previous incarnations of the seminar product as well. This article was subject to an ArbComm case and suffers from COI POV pushing issues. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pursuant to the discussion in the above section about merging content into a single article, and the comment made from one of our more knowledgable editors dealing with matters of corporate content in that discussion that maybe this would be the best name for an article on the primary product of the legal entities involved. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support not my idea, just listed the move request. Note the proposed title is currently a redirect to the current title. We would reverse that so Landmark Worldwide would redirect to Landmark Forum. Also since there are many Landmark subsidiaries and branches worldwide, a change of title to the official name of the primary product of these organizations makes a lot of sense. Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The majority of the article content is about the company, not the product. WP:TITLE is clear that the article title "indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles". If there is sufficient content to have an article about the product (Landmark Forum) then that article should be created. At this point, it appears that most sources (and the majority of the content here) are about the company. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the page history, your primary role here is removing anything negative about the company or the product. Therefore your opinion is quite expected. Some new non-Landmark related editors without a clear bias POOV are trying to have a discussion here. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How does opposing a move that is against policy (specifically WP:TITLE) equate to removing something negative? Yes, I have edited this article somewhat frequently recently. Have you actually looked at the edits made? What do you base your statement on? The Arbitration Committee reviewed my edits as a part of the recent case and did not see any issues. The majority of edits were to incorporate the results of RfCs, merges, etc., and were fully supported by (and frequently reinstated by) admins and other editors. So, where is your clear AGF? Who has the bias here? What is the POV?  Please check your facts and support your accusations in the future. This is not the venue to make attacks. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I came here because the ArbComm requested more input from uninvolved editors. Now your buddy has dragged a bunch of us to ArbComm seeking to eject us from the article. I hope the move and merge requests pull in more uninvolved editors to comment. Pretty clear ArbComm felt there were COI editors here, and you are one of them evidently. You dodged my question about your connection to Landmark, pretty much confirming you are bias. Hence my comments. Legacypac (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Tentatively support If anyone can provide an in-depth profile story about one of these organizations, where the source suggests the company is substantially involved or known for matters not related to Landmark Forum, this would demonstrate that there is a substantial amount of material from secondary sources that would not fit on the product page. In that case I would change my mind. However, my limited knowledge of the subject matter from glancing at the articles suggests this is the right path to go. The new article should probably say "previously known as EST training" and the exact best structure may be difficult to figure out.  CorporateM (Talk) 21:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. As the companies have always been closely held, with little information available in independent references for the corporate governance, structure, etc. (not so regarding the programs offered based in est), this seems a reasonable course. The company does have a multitude of follow-up courses and services based on the Forum, directed at different markets, but those would barely flesh out a stub. • Astynax talk 00:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This also seems to be a reasonable application of WP:COMMONNAME. • Astynax talk 21:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on google searches, COMMONNAME would indicate "Landmark Education" - which makes sense, as that was the name before the company recently changed to "Landmark Worldwide". I opposed the rapid change of the article name from LE to LW at that time, but now "Landmark Worldwide" appears to be consistently used (again, just based on COMMONNAME criteria). --Tgeairn (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose I'm confused as to why we would want to change the name of a company article to that of one of its products. It seems about as sensible as changing the name of the Apple article to iPhone. This article seems to be mostly about the company, not the Landmark Forum course, which would make the name doubly strange. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Nwlaw63 Is the Landmark Forum "just another product" or is it the primary product they are known for? When I go to their website, it seems heavily focused on the Landmark Forum. I'm guessing they are private though, because I cannot find an annual report, which would be helpful as it would offer a revenue breakdown that might establish the significance of its other training programs. The New York Times says "The Forum is the cornerstone workshop of Landmark Education". The source seems to be about the Landmark training and covers its prior corporate owners in that context. CorporateM (Talk) 21:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about "main" - it's their first, introductory course, so the one talked about most often, but I don't think it's the dominant or "main" thing about the company. Maybe there should be a section about their other courses. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose The article is clearly about the organisation. 'Landmark Forum' is the name of one of the several dozen courses it offers. In any case, Landmark Forum redirects to here. DaveApter (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Landmark, as a corporation, may not like it but Wikipedia works on the basis of what reliable secondary sources say as we don't do original research. If enough reliable secondary sources say that Landmark has clear links to other corporate bodies then we write and structure things as per those sources. AnonNep (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The redirect will be reversed, so Landmark Worldwide redirects to Landmark Forum. Considering the company website barely mentions its name while heavily emphasizing Landmark Forum, DaveApter's superiors should like this move as it promotes the groups major product, from which all other products are derived. You want to check on that and get back to us Dave?Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Referring to "my superiors" is a deliberate and unwarranted smear. Please retract it and apologise. DaveApter (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting you did not say "I'm not employed or a volunteer with Landmark." Thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I've already said on numerous occasions that my sole relationship with the company is as a customer who did several of their courses some years ago. Since no-one has produced any evidence to the contrary there's nothing to respond to. Naturally if the Arbitrators had any questions for me I would have answered them. DaveApter (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You have also, repeatedly, pointedly refused to address the issues of whether you are related to individuals who are or have been employees. It is also, of course, possible that, given your habit of rigorous definition, you might be a contracter assigned to Landmark, but not employed by them directly, or perhaps in some way some sort of shareholder, particularly if you were an employee under an early version of the organization. Given the tendency to very deliberately parse words which you have displayed, including in the recent arbitration, I think it is reasonable that your words be taken to say only what they absolutely literally must mean, and that's all. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another carefully parsed answer only adds to the impression of COI. Everyone here should be aware by now that WP:COI guidelines encompass a host of interests apart from employment. As I recall, arbs suggested that the matter of COI be brought to WP:COIN, rather than them indicating that there was no COI. After this matter being raised repeatedly by different editors over the years, that is likely the place further discussion should occur. • Astynax talk 18:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK y'all--DaveApter's possible COI need not be elaborated here. The only thing that the closer of this move request should care about is the strength of his argument; the rest is neither here nor there. To all: please be mindful of WP:NPA--play the ball, not the man. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose Reading through the article as-is it is more about the company than about the product, and it feels more natural in this case to have an article about a company that also mentions a specific product than it does to have an article about a product with information about the company in it. Specifically the Corporation and Litigation are far more relevant to the company than to the product, and the History and Religious Characteristics sections are somewhat more relevant to the company. The Course content and Public reception are product specific, but on the balance I still think the article has the appropriate title already.

 * I think a separate question is whether we should have an article about the company at all or only about the product. I don't currently have an opinion about that, but I'm basing my opinion on what the article is now. Chuy1530 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason for the proposed move is to allow for the merger of the content in the three extant articles which, in one form or another, deal with what has been called the "Landmark Forum" among other things in a single article, as that seems to be the primary topic to which the individual companies which have separate articles are more or less subtopics. That merger is proposed separately above. I acknowledge that there might be some basis for keeping est as a separate article, maybe, if there is sufficient difference in content between it and the later incarnations, but according to the sources produced above there doesn't seem to be much difference between the various forms that have been clearly documented in independent reliable sources, and several sources which seem to indicate that the various companies and forms are basically continuations, to some degree, of the original. John Carter (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've stricken my !vote, because reading into it what you say makes sense and an article focused on the forum (haven't read enough to have an opinion on est) is probably the best outcome. I think it'll need worked on once it is moved because the current article doesn't make much sense at what would be the new title but in the grand scheme of things we'll get to the right place. Chuy1530 (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose: This article is about the company, this company (Landmark). Per the Search results section below, COMMONNAME might indicate moving to "Landmark Education", but that is the old name of the company. The discussion above is confusing as some editors are talking about companies and some are talking about products. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Search results
"Landmark forum" = 161,000 results while "Landmark Worldwide" = 46,200 results. At 750% 350% greater search results, WP:COMMONNAME is "Landmark Forum" Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The current article seems stuck in "its about THIS company" loop that has prevented a proper presentation on the product. The product, not the assorted versions of the company is what most readers are interested in. As in, "I got invited to attend Landmark Forum - what is it about?" If this does not pass, how about we develop a separate article about the Landmark Forum at what is now a redirect only. Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is certainly actual (if not for the purposes of legal liability) continuity between both the various product{s} over the years, and between the various iterations of the organization. Reliable sources report that there was/is continuity, the convoluted method of the buyout between WE&A and Transnational Education (aka, Landmark) notwithstanding. • Astynax talk 09:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also continuity of people. The founder continues to be involved (in some ways anyway) and his brother is the CEO of Landmark today, not withstanding the corporate name changes. Legacypac (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And "Landmark Education" yields 394,000 results. I have no idea what calculator you're using that says that 161k is 750% greater than 46k, but I can certainly see that 394k > 161k.  So apply COMMONNAME, and then change it to reflect the name change of the company. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously the wrong key. The company still uses metatags that say Landmark Education on its website. Legacypac (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment looks a little snarky from here, I apologize for that. I only meant to point out that it was not 7.5x. On the meta tags, are you talking about the Landmark Worldwide website? I randomly checked a few pages and did not find "Landmark Education" in the source other that a link to their twitter feed. Can you provide a link?  It shouldn't matter much though, we're still left with a significant majority for "Landmark Education" in search results. Thanks --Tgeairn (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Before you edit further on this article you should read this
I used to edit on this article and other related articles and much of what is happening right now is why I lost interest. I am breaking a long silence because I think it is important for current editors to be aware of the following. Much of the material that editors are attempting to add to the article in the name of balance has a significant problem. These items have been removed by the community in the past for poor and inaccurate sourcing as well as undue weight. These were originally added by a now notoriously de-sysoped and topic banned editor named CIRT/Smee/Smeelgova and a second sanctioned and now inactive editor Pedant17. The two single biggest contributors to the article by a wide margin. You can see some of their history: here. Arbcom said:"“Cirt, According to statements in Evidence, and by his own admission, Cirt has, against policy, placed 'undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs' and followed poor sourcing practices." And Cirt admitted the following: "“I agree that my sourcing practices were inadequate, and that I’ve unwisely included undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs.”" The second biggest contributor to the article was also sanctioned for endentious and disruptive editing. Both Cirt/Smee/Smeelgova and Pedant17 had a similar level of involvment on the Werner Erhard article The Est Article The Werner Erhard and Associates Article Please Note: I am not making any accusations about anyone currently editing the article. I do believe that the history I have provided is relevant to current discussions on the article. Spacefarer (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the timely and convenient link to what I assume is the case that some editors have been hinting at to users who disagree with their PoV. Yes, there are some things that can be taken from reading through the accusations on that case, although I am not sure which items the arbs thought compelling and which they dismissed. The problems identified where that case touches on Landmark seem to rest on things like mischaracterization of both sources and what sources say, blanking referenced edits under various pretexts, and intransigent resistance to reflecting the weight found in reliable references. Blanking sourced statements that do not fit with one's PoV is not "restoring balance", but rather, pushing an unbalanced version. If there is reliably sourced (even from the same reliable source) information that depicts another significant point of view, then as I have said before the solution is to add that material; not to blank referenced information. Not all viewpoints, however, have significant, reliably sourced counterpoints, and it is not legitimate to demand that alternative viewpoints not based in significant reliable sources be included. Using WP:OR to advocate one's PoV is equally invalid.

 * In the history section, for example, either significant reliable sources say something happened, did not happen or disagree. The article can and should include the information, no matter what editors' viewpoints may be. There is frankly, little disagreement among sources regarding the history. It does get more complex when approaching the product ("Forum"), as there are widely differing views that need to be included when that topic is reworked to address its current sorry state. The same principles, however, should apply.

 * Despite repeated statements here, there are many reliable sources for the subject of this article, both explored and cited in academic literature. Some sources portray the subject in what appears to be an over-rosy light, some in darker tones. Regardless, the point is to factually report all significant points of view resting in reliable sources, not to ignore them. It is invalid to second-guess reliable sources, critique them based on personal editorial criteria, or twist what they say or dismiss them because of what they report. What we are not to do is use the encyclopedia's voice to present a skewed picture that does not reflect all significant viewpoints as reported by reliable sources. Repeatedly and incrementally blanking, information that does not sit well with a particular point of view can leave encyclopedia users with a biased article, such as existed last July. Expunging wide swaths of significant reportage does readers who come to the encyclopedia no favor. • Astynax talk 04:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking through the history of this article and related articles I agree that there seems to be cycles where it approached a NPOV and then any balance was worn out by a continuous process of attrition. It is probable that this will happen again but it is our duty to ensure that the article can be improved to where it is reasonably balanced.Cathar66 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a new problem with this article and suggest interested editors should read this | Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal 2007-05-21Cathar66 (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out whether and  have completely missed the point of Spacefarer's comments, or whether they are deliberately "playing dumb". The editors who were blocked, de-sysopped, and/or topic banned (eg /,  and ) were the ones who were POV-pushing the anti-Landmark line similar to the one favoured by Astynax and his collaborators now, not the ones who were trying to establish a factual and fairly-balanced account. DaveApter (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and I'm unsure why DaveApter continually and uncivilly brings up sanctioned editors here. Having read the decision provided, it doesn't appear that their bans were at all prompted by content edits here. Nor are past editors relevant to current discussions. Repeatedly bringing up these lists of sanctioned editors to suggest that other editors may be banned due to including material that runs counter to Landmark's PoV is itself highly offensive, as is your current impugning the motives of editors. • Astynax talk 19:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just stated the facts; the assumptions of what is "suggested" are just that: assumptions. For the record, Cirt's topic ban and de-sysop was explicitly for NPOV editing and source misrepresentation in relation to, inter alia, Landmark, est, WEA, numerous related articles, and may other items relating broadly to the Human potential movement. DaveApter (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-read the case. There was no such finding with regard to Landmark, est, WEA, related articles or the Human potential movement. Unless you have evidence that these editors have been making edits here, your continued and irrelevant harping on these users is WP:HARASSMENT and an explicit violation of civility policy. Moreover, the perceived implication that editors here will be topic-banned because of the unsubstantiated linkage between adding material which runs counter to your PoV and other editors' behaviors is equally unwarranted and irrelevant to discussions here. Please stop it. • Astynax talk 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sent to WP:AN/I from WP:COIN
The problems here were referred to WP:COIN, as a conflict of interest issue. This article has been a long-term headache and a subject of ArbComm sanctions. That's more than we can handle at WP:COIN. So I passed the buck to the administrators' noticeboard, at WP:AN/I. They have the big hammers that will probably be needed to resolve this. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Review
I have been reviewing this article since I came back across it last week and going through some of the history. It is clearly contentious (as it has been since back a few years ago when I last was involved). It seemed like it had reached a fairly tolerable level of balance- not perfect but not over representing  any particular POV until the last six months or so when it began to be targeted by what appear to me to be POV warriors.

Below is what I think the current issues with the article are from a Wikipedia policy standpoint. I believe these need to be handled fairly quickly to even get the article to a place where it can be worked on by people together.

I will make some of these changes - not with new material but material from the page when it was stable and prior to these radical changes. Before I did that though I wanted to get some responses and comments before I did anything.

Here are my thoughts as to some of the issues:

Wikipedia: Relevance and Wikipedia: Coatrack
Much of the material on Werner Erhard and est predates the actual creation of Landmark Education. A good clue that content is not relevant if a majority of the content in the article is dated BEFORE the creation of the subject of the article. :-)

In fact that leads me to think that in fact most of these recent edits have been "coatrack" edits. They are ostensibly about Landmark Education but seem primarily a venue for them to grind an axe about one of the founders of previous organizations to this one. (speaking of course about Werner Erhard and est).

Wikipedia: Reliable sources and undue weight
In the page on reliable sources and undue weight it says:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

As an example, the entire section on the religious aspects of Landmark's programs does not even belong in this article at all- it is given far too much weight. Even the references that mention it often end with qualifications like "well it clearly is not religious but it has some attributes of it" or it turns out that that organization had to remove it from its sites. Many of the sources are websites from people who make their living by generating fear and worry in order to do their business. The fact that most of the references are from the last century and pre-date the formation of the organization that the article is about put the final coffin nail on this in my opinion.

Wikipedia: Synth
The leads me to the whole question of original research and the synthesis of that. These edits - as past ones have been- appear to be driven by fringe thinking that somehow these three organizations are the same organizations and that Werner Erhard is somehow still involved lurking behind the scenes like a sinister puppet master. There is no question that the organizations are related or that there is a common thread and evolution of content, product and people linking them but the record is also clear that Werner Erhard dissolved Werner Erhard and Associates and that some of the employees created a new company. This seems to be classic Synth thing. There are no reputable or majority sources supporting these theories and indeed there are considerable counter facts to it.

Wikipedia: Biographies of Living Persons
On top of the above Werner Erhard is a living person not currently in the public eye and not formally associated with Landmark Worldwide in any way except a historical and familial one (his brother and sister hold senior leadership roles in the company). Much of the added content tends to focus on the issues like accusations made against Werner Erhard (that were later recanted) and tax issues (which the IRS later publically acknowledged involved no wrong doing by Mr. Erhard, and indeed settled with Werner Erhard). It will often include paragraphs on the accusations and then one small sentence saying  "and oh yes it turns out that none of that was true"  after going on about it for paragraphs.

This seems to be a direct smear against a living person who is not really directly relevant to the article in the first place. None of that stuff belongs here, and I wonder if it belongs on Wikipedia at all!

All of these combined lead me to believe that this article needs to be returned to the stable state it was in and had been arrived at by long fought for consensus.

Comments welcome.

Respectfully, Alex Jackl (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree with most of the points you're making here, particularly regarding the undue weight of the 'religious' material - as I've already said at great length here, the argument for Landmark as 'religious' doesn't hold up to close scrutiny of all the available sources - it's more an issue of how new religious movements are classified by writers than any serious claims that Landmark fits any reasonable definition of religion or religious.

 * Regarding your other points, the one that stands out to me is relevance. There's now a history section that seems twice as long as any other part of the article that devotes itself entirely to complex tax structures that predated Landmark's existence. It's of no relevance to Landmark and turns the article into an unreadable mess. I assume it's been put there to grind some kind of POV axe, but all it does is put the reader to sleep. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Can you identify a date on which you consider the article to have been "stable"? As to the other points in your review:
 * The history of an entity is relevant, both things that led up to its formation, its formation and subsequent development. It is not undue weight for an entity's history to occupy a large portion of an article, especially where this is the coverage in sources. That does not mean that coverage of other aspects should not be reported for expanding other sections. Even Landmark, in its early days, explicitly acknowledged itself as the continuation of WE&A (regardless of whether it later denied inheriting the legal responsibilities incurred by WE&A). No one is "grinding an axe" by reporting what reliable sources state.
 * The suggestion that the references regarding the treatment of Landmark as a NRM are insignificant or predate the formation of Landmark is false. Take another look.
 * You say that it is obvious that Erhard and Landmark are related, yet are somehow opposed to detailing the relationship. Again, the references used are not fringe, and you have not pointed to any instance of synthesis. If there is material that you believe to be synthesis, question it or ask that a direct quote be footnoted.
 * In fact, Erhard has a continuing association with Landmark (as a paid consultant, licensor, speaker at company functions, etc.). The situation regarding his relationship with Landmark Worldwide is similar to his previous association with EST Inc. and EST, An Educational Corporation, where Erhard seemingly had no ownership participation or control. Regarding the tax issues: there were multiple investigations, and WE&A was required to pay back deductions based upon circular loans and other invalid deductions. The article already reports that Erhard was cleared of personal responsibility in a later tax fraud investigation. The latter is noted in several sources as one of the reasons for his transferring WE&A assets to TEC/Landmark and leaving the United States, and is thus a significant part of the narrative. It is not a slur against Erhard.
 * None of the items in the review support indiscriminate blanking of cited material. • Astynax talk 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph particularly is simply wild speculation. It is well known and undisputed that Erhard owned the various EST and WEA businesses, led the management of them, and led many of their training programs, and trained the other program leaders. It is well established (and nowhere contested) that he consults from time to time with Landmark's development team and that he licensed certain intellectual property to the company, and has no involvement with the ownership and management of it. The rest of what is stated above is pure speculation, whether on the part of Astynax, or on the part of others who could not conceivably be party to relevant information. What RS supports these assertions? As for the farrago of confused comments about taxation matters, what is the relevance of any of that to the subject of this article, and what could be the motivation in dwelling on it, if not to leave a misleading impression of wrongdoing and sleaziness? DaveApter (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not speculation at all. As the article describes, Erhard never directly owned the EST entities. As he later did when Landmark was formed, he only retained ownership of the est/Forum product "technology" through overseas shell companies, and thus reaped the profits through a licensing arrangement, but had no direct ownership of EST, Inc. or EST, An Educational Corporation. At first, he only acted as a consultant to EST (again, as at Landmark), and later became a mere employee when his employment contract was transferred from Presentaciones Musicales S.A. to EST. He also controlled substantial loans to both EST and Landmark, so of course, he exercised considerable influence over EST, but it is completely fictitious to claim that he exercised direct ownership of EST, Inc. or EST, An Educational Corporation. He only took direct ownership when WE&A was formed to buy out EST using a circular loan to EST to fund the transfer. The material was cited in the article. As you appear to agree that he has indeed continued to have considerable involvement with the company, it is also disingenuous to claim that he has had no involvement. The relevance of the 2 separate tax investigations is that the first regarded the means of financing his buyout of EST (using a circular loan to reap tax benefits in the process of buying out a company he only controlled indirectly up to that point), and the second regards the widely acknowledged reasons for selling up and leaving the US. You are the person suggesting painting this as wrongdoing and sleaziness, not the article. • Astynax talk 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In Response to non-RS assertions
I have not seen any RS that establishes as fact that Erhard is paid as a consultant or has ever spoken at a company function. And to state that Erhard was not involved in est has no basis in reality at all. In anything I've ever read it says Erhard was very hands on with est, he created it, led all the initial courses, trained others to lead the course and no one to my knowledge has ever said otherwise. But what really stands out in your statement the most is that you allege that Erhard was investigated for tax fraud and this is simply untrue. Erhard was never accused of nor investigated for tax fraud. That there was false reporting in the media about tax problems was actually the crux of the lawsuit that he filed and won against the IRS.

"...several IRS spokesmen were widely reported as saying that Erhard owed millions of dollars in back taxes, that he was transferring assets out of the country, and that the agency was suing Erhard. The implication was that Erhard was a tax cheat who refused to pay his taxes that were lawfully due. In fact, Erhard, 61, contended that he never refused to pay a lawfully due tax and has not refused to pay millions in back taxes. He alleged that not only did the IRS spokesmen illegally disclose confidential tax return information, but that their statements were false. The founder and head of San Francisco-based Erhard Seminars Training Inc., popularly called est, filed a wrongful disclosure suit against the IRS in 1993. IRS spokesmen subsequently admitted that statements attributed to them about Erhard's supposed tax liability were false, but that they did not ask the media to correct the statements." (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/LEADER+OF+EST+MOVEMENT+WINS+$200,000+FROM+IRS.-a083966944)

In other words, the IRS agents admitted that their statements about Erhard's supposed tax liabilities were false and they also admitted that they didn't go back to the press to ask them to correct their false statements. Their false statements are the same ones you are now trying to cite. We can't now cite those old media reports of tax misdeeds that the IRS has since admitted were false.

This is also all talking about a living person in a negative manner and has little relevance to the article about Landmark Education. Thanks, Alex Jackl (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In light of all of this I will make some modifications that are consistent with what we have been speaking about.
 * That you have not looked at the references is no reason to blank cited information. You have also twisted what I said in my previous response. I never said anything faintly suggesting that Erhard was not involved with EST, but only that he was not the owner of EST, Inc. or EST, An Educational Corporation. I urge you to re-read my posts, as you are tilting at non-existent issues. Nor, as I previously explained, did the article state that Erhard was convicted of tax fraud, and in fact, explicitly stated that he was cleared of personal responsibility in the matter you mentioned. • Astynax talk 10:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * If your version of the article "explicitly stated that he was cleared of personal responsibility", what was the point of mentioning tax issues in the first place, if not in an attempt to smear Erhard by implication? And what is the relevance of all that to the subject of Landmark Worldwide? And what is the relevance of whether he did or did not technically "own" the est companies ten years or more before the formation of Landmark? And - while the various feature articles in free newspapers and satirical magazines may be reliable as sources for the opinions and impressions of their authors - they cannot possibly be reliable as sources for supposedly factual assertions about offshore companies, asset transfers, recruitment numbers and other details which few outside the company would know? DaveApter (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet again, the tax investigation was a significant factor in triggering Erhard to look to dissolve WE&A. It is relevant because it directly contributed to the formation of the current iteration of the company. Nor is your mischaracterization of the sources either accurate or appropriate. Much information in reliable sources is based upon interviews with those directly involved and upon documentation that is part litigation involving Landmark. Using original research again to dismiss and raise doubts about reliable sources is not a function of editors, nor a justification for re-inserting blatant puffery. • Astynax talk 19:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In particular, to assist with the establishment of a consensus, could you please indicate what are the reliable secondary sources for the following statements in your controversial edits, and what are the primary sources on which they draw? Also could you indicate how these sources establish the relevance of these assertions to the subject of this article?
 * ”Erhard was employed at a very modest salary while and license fees were made to offshore companies”
 * ”At the same time his intellectual property was transferred from the Panamanian company to, a new company in the Netherlands named, Welbehagen. which licensed the foundation to present the seminars.”
 * ”A Jersey Charitable Settlement to own the foundation with a Swiss entity, the Werner Erhard Foundation for est, was set up to control it.”
 * ”Werner Erhard and Associates (WE&A)was established,... which purchased the assets of the various corporations and charities. This was arranged through a series of loans”
 * ”In its first 18 months, Transformational Technologies licensed over 50 franchises at a $25,000 licensing fee with revenue based royalties”
 * ”Erhard replaced the est seminars with a slightly modified and less authoritarian program which he "rebranded" as The Forum.”

Pending clarification of these points, I think it best that the article be reverted to the version of Alex Jackl, which I will now do. Please address these issues before re-reverting. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The citations were in the article before you again blanked the fully-referenced material. Reverting to what is represents the same PoV status that existed prior to the article being tagged for puffery by last July. In the process, you and AJackl have blanked significant and fully sourced material and other interim edits.  • Astynax talk 19:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Updates to Page
I made some updates to restore the page based on the breaches of Wikipedia policies that the page seemed to be full of. See the above statements. If you want to tlak about any of those please discuss here. Thank you! Alex Jackl (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reverted most of the material you blanked. No "breaches of Wikipedia policies" have been shown, and the material blanked was fully-cited. I retained some of the material you pasted from older versions, though this has removed by several editors in the past for various rationales. Again, if you have reliably referenced material to insert, do not use this as a pretext to blank cited material. • Astynax talk 10:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After reading the discussion here on the talk page, it is increasingly clear that claims that all this newly added history material regarding taxes and corporate structures is somehow relevant to Landmark ride on the extraordinary and dubious assertion that Erhard plays the same role with Landmark as he did with est. In fact, we have overwhelming reliable sourcing that says that for al intents and purposes, Erhard ran est and its later iterations until he sold it in 1991, and after that, he left the country and has had no control over Landmark's operations since that time. Therefore, I have removed this material that would only have relevance under this clearly false assertion. I have also removed a couple of sources that were either blogs, newsletters or primary sources, which are wholly inadequate for making factual claims. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is increasingly clear that you are mistaken. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are mistaken. The sources say what the sources say, and the article reported it. Please stop using speculative OR as a pretext for blanking cited material yet again. • Astynax talk 18:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nwlaw63 is indeed mistaken, and should not be blanking sourced material that does not fit with his version of reliable or important. Erhard is obviously very involved in Landmark, despite the corporate reorgs. It is the same business through various incarnations. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Erhard ran est - he doesn't run Landmark. This is what the reliable sources say. There is no denying it - black is black and white is white. Even the cursory look for sources I made makes this abundantly clear:

 * From Cosmopolitan, June 1975, quotes Erhard's most senior employee as saying: “If Werner disappeared tomorrow, we’d disappear the day after. Pressmen, who is being relied on for the majority of the history section, makes it abundantly clear that, in his words “everything revolved around Werner”. He goes out of his way to make the point that whatever the tax structuring is, Erhard is the one running everything.

 * Contrast this with Erhard's dealings with Landmark Landmark, where there is zero reliable sourcing saying anything similar. According to the sources, Erhard sold the property to Landmark, left the country, and “went into exile”. The Skeptic’s Dictionary says “Apparently, however, Erhard is not involved in the operation of LEC.”

 * All we do know from reliable sources regarding Erhard’s current involvement with Landmark is that (according to Landmark) he consults with them from time to time. That he is somehow in charge or "very involved" is an idea that appears to be pure speculation on the part of a couple of editors on this talk page.

 * This speculation is just a weak attempt to justify the relevance of Erhard’s taxes to the Landmark article. Specifically, the comments by Astynax that “The situation regarding his relationship with Landmark Worldwide is similar to his previous association with EST Inc. and EST, An Educational Corporation” and the one by Legacypac that “Erhard is obviously very involved in Landmark, despite the corporate reorgs” appear to have no basis in reality. If you have reliable sources saying Erhard is somehow pulling the strings at Landmark, now would be the time to produce them, or else stop asserting your opinions as fact. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Again, you have twisted what the article and sources indicate, which is simply that he did not have any direct ownership of EST, Inc. or EST, An Educational Corporation. What he did own (through a foreign entity) was the "technology" that EST licensed, and the same relationship was again employed when WE&A was dissolved, with Erhard again licensing his "technology" to TEC/Landmark. The straw man assertion that the article says that Erhard is "pulling the strings" is irrelevant, as is mischaracterizing what the article says about the tax case, which is an important part of the history in establishing the combination of factors that led to the transition from WE&A to TEC/Landmark. • Astynax talk 06:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Additions deleted?
Hello, all! I had added some additional references to this page the other day, and it seems they were deleted? I'm not sure why? Thanks for your attention! Captkeating (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See the edit summary here. This material had been previously deleted. You may want to ping the editor who removed for further information. • Astynax talk 01:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well the fact that something was previously deleted begs the question of whether or not the original deletion was justified or not (something Astynax should be the first to acknowledge, given the frequency with which he re-inserts deleted material!). In this case the original deletion was not justified (it was claimed that the Irish Daily Mail was not a reliable source, wheras it was agreed at a recent Reliable sources noticeboard thread  that it was entirely adequate for establishing the opinion of the writer, which is what is being asserted.
 * The other deletion made at the same time was even more wide of the mark: the deleting editor jumped to the conclusion that the source was the 'Mayfair' porn mag, wheras actually it was The Mayfair Magazine, the upmarket London Lifestyle journal ! DaveApter (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Minor changes to incorporation and history section
I made some minor factual cleanups and weasel word removal from the incorporation and history section of the article. There is a lot more unreliable and POV stuff in there but I removed the most egregious just to make it more factual and accurate. Also - I don't know what some of these editor's fascinations are with Werner Erhard but they should go to the Werner Erhard or some other page about that guy to air their grievances or keep it off Wikipedia entirely given WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP.

Thanks, Alex Jackl (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Also removed a small paragraph that was talking about some history about the EST and Werner Erhard that was at least a decade before Landmark was even formed. I agree there needs to be some historical context in this article- but this article is very little about Landmark itself and mostly about things that happened before it even existed, Undue weight, relevance, etc. I am trying to make only absolutely obvious no-brainer edits. Any issues- please comment. Thank you  Alex Jackl (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 * In the same section, I have removed three citations (a blog and two self-styled "investigative" websites). In two of the three cases, the article already had another source cited for the passage. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from the doubtful relevance of almost all of the material in this section, it contains a good deal of editorialising and blunt statements of supposed facts which are not adequately established by the sources referenced. I will make a start on tidying this up. DaveApter (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please discuss your "tidying up" on this talk page first? Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

 * The entire section, as I said, is basically irrelevant to the topic of this article, dealing with alleged events which supposedly happened years before the formation of this company. I actually think that the whole paragraph should be removed, but I left a factual account of the sequence of events, shorn of editorialising and spin. Not only that, but the items included have clearly been cherry-picked to cast a certain impression, and at. Furthermore, on several points, the sources quoted could not have access to the alleged facts which they are supposed to substantiate, and - since they themselves cite no references - they can only be regarded as hearsay or speculation. In other respects, I simply tidied up clumsy and ungainly constructions. In detail:

 * "The predecessors to The Landmark Forum - the Forum and est (Erhard Seminars Training) had been presented by a succession of companies beginning with Erhard Seminars Training, Inc. in the early 1970s" What's your objection to that - a simple straightforward factual sentence replacing a convoluted one? What is the justification for "direct" to qualify "predecessors"? Or for "continuum" rather than "succession"? And what are these "other, related, iterations"?
 * "Erhard had no formal training in psychology or psychiatry and had previously been a successful salesman" So what? He never said he did.,
 * "became involved with Zen Buddhism, Scientology and Mind Dynamics." Why pick out these from the vast range of disciplines and philosophies that he studied during that period? And what's the relevance to Landmark?
 * "He considered setting up est as a church, but instead chose a for-profit model," My version gives a more accurate summary of what the source actually said.
 * "with a complex web of onshore and offshore companies." How could Pressman of Hukil know these things? This is just speculation or hearsay. These are assertions made by Pressman for which he provides no evidence or references.
 * "These were set up by the "controversial" corporate attorney Harry Margolis." So what? Who cares? Adn what's the relevance to Landmark?
 * "In 1979, EST Inc. was dissolved and replaced by a charitable foundation named "est, An Educational Corporation". At the same time his intellectual property was transferred from the Panamanian company to, a new company in the Netherlands named, Welbehagen. which licensed the foundation to present the seminars. to "est, An Educational Corporation". A Jersey Charitable Settlement to own the foundation with a Swiss entity, the Werner Erhard Foundation for est, set up to control it." Speculation again, and irrelevant. These are assertions made by Pressman for which he provides no evidence or references.
 * "By 1981 Erhard decided to simplify the complicated structure of est-related entities. ... This was arranged through a series of loans." ditto - how could Pressman know what Erhard's thought processed were?
 * "In its first 18 months, TT licensed over 50 franchises at a $25,000 licensing fee with revenue based royalties." How would this be known, and what's the relevance? These are assertions made by Pressman for which he provides no evidence or references. DaveApter (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Erhard had experimented with a modified version of est as early as 1983. By 1985, faced with increasing controversy and drastically falling recruitment numbers,... " Speculation.
 * "Erhard replaced the est seminars with a slightly modified and less authoritarian program which he "rebranded" as The Forum." What's the justification for the "slightly", or for the weasily "rebranded" in scare-quotes over the neutral "named"?
 * "Later, managers realized that there was significant revenue generated from signing up participants for follow-up courses." More spculation.
 * " With the same staff WE&A was able to reduce the cost and increased the throughput of recruits, which also increased the number of the acquaintances to whom participants marketed The Forum. period. More recruits resulted in increased enrollment for the higher-priced follow-up courses." Synthesis or supposition. DaveApter (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First: to call a historical paragraph "irrelevant", is a sure sign of a non-encyclopedic attitude. This is not a webpage to promote the products of Landmark Worldwide, but an article that should provide encyclopedic information about the subject, including a historical paragraph that (in a sense) rectifies the promotional talk of the Landmarkians (of course many kinds of advertising and branding are wholly legitimate activities for a commercial enterprise): there is and always has been an uninterrupted succession of enterprises, delivering basically the same products.
 * Second: It is no use quarrelling with reliable sources. What you call 'speculation' or 'hearsay' or 'synthesis' or 'supposition' is well-documented in books and articles published by reputable publishers. The expression 'tidying up' is an ominous euphemism for eliminating information that you obviously think repelling or disconcerting. In some respects you are right: the historical paragraph is not particularly flattering in all its details, but by and large the writer of that paragraph is not to blame for his unflattering accuracy.
 * Third: I will address your criticisms point by point:
 * Convolutedness is not the issue here. Your sentence mistakenly excludes Landmark Forum from the list. Since 1971 and up to the current date there has been an uninterrupted (or barely interrupted) succession of companies, delivering basically the same products, inluding the latest product manifestation (Landmark Forum) proffered by the latest company occurence (Landmark Worldwide).
 * Of course, his lack of formal education is relevant. It provides the context for the incoherence of many of Erhard's utterances, the hotchpotch philosophy behind his seminars training, the tricks of the keen salesman (which he undoubtedly was).
 * This set of origins could possibly be extended, but it is as such frequently mentioned in scholarly literature. Erhard acknowledged Zen as an essential inspiration. His indebtedness to Scientology and Mind Dynamics is - it is true - sometimes denied or belittled by Landmarkians, but it is not controversial at all in whatever reliable source you consult. Even the books that describe Erhard as an infallible genius mention those three sources of inspiration. See for example the paragraph Self Education in the article Werner Erhard (a blatant hagiography throughout, by the way). To mention an example of scholarly literature: Steven M. Tipton, Getting Saved from the Sixties: Moral Meaning in Conversion and Cultural Change, University of California Press, 1982, p.176, p.329(n.3).
 * Yes, but the consideration to set up est as a church, is left out. As the religious aspects of est are frequently disputed by Landmarkians, this is a regrettable omission.
 * See Tipton (1982), p.328-329 (n.2)
 * I agree that this statement could better be crossed out.
 * Well-sourced and relevant: it sheds light on the way Erhard has set up the business.
 * Well-sourced and relevant.
 * Well-sourced and relevant: it sheds light on Erhard's commercial instincts, the tax controversies, and the decline of the popularity of est in the eighties.
 * Well-sourced and relevant: why call this 'speculation'? This is wellknown to everyone vaguely familiar with the subject.
 * Well-sourced and relevant: you might contest 'slightly' - the seminar training was adapted to the whirligig of time, but remained essentially the same - but "rebranding" is exactly what happened.
 * I have no objection to leave this out.
 * Well-sourced and relevant.
 * Thank you for your attention. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I stand by my assessment that this is substantially irrelevant to the subject of this particular article, and appreciate that your opinion differs. I also think that depending so heavily on Pressman is problematic; firstly for the obvious reason that he is clearly biased and the simplistic caricature he paints of Erhard is absurd, but more importantly because he gives no references or citations and thus can hardly be regarded as a secondary source. He is merely repeating what some anonymous person told him. The essence of a secondary source is that its claims can be traced back to primary sources which have been evaluated. Your point about my first sentence is mistaken; I did not "exclude Landmark Forum from the list" - I clearly stated that its predecessors were The Forum and est. Your remarks above about "the incoherence of many of Erhard's utterances" and "hotchpotch philosophy" clearly demonstrate a degree of partiality in your own view of the subject. DaveApter (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Astynax' section not only dealt with "the predecessors" but also with Landmark Forum, the current incarnation of the seminars training. In your edit Landmark Forum had disappeared. The history section has many sources apart from Pressman. But Pressman (who is not an unqualified admirer of WE) is frequently used as a source for the richness of its factual information, as is W.W. Bartley, III (who not seldom exhibits enthusiasm for WE's achievements). With both of them we should be invariably careful to separate facts from opinion. My remarks do not "demonstrate clearly a degree of partiality on my part". Erhard's incoherence and the idiosyncracy of his utterances have been described (and mocked) in extenso. The same applies to his 'eclectic' and 'pragmatic' compilation of notions with an appearance of profundity and the ability to impress, which underly and constitute his intellectual inheritance. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop deleting while we are discussing the relevance of the section. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Why do you keep saying editors are "deleting while discussing"  You show in your above section that you clearly have a personal POV against Werner Erhard.  That is fine but your beef against this guy does not belong in Wikipedia.
 * 1. I don't know if some of the things you opine about him are true and, frankly, I personally don't care.
 * 2. You keep adding content that focuses on events that happened before Landmark was even started AND
 * 3. You keep adding in content that is about a man who sold the rights to some IP that Landmark bought 24 years ago
 * 4. You keep perpetuating some urban myth that Werner Erhard is behind the scenes at Landmark when in fact (and by all the evidence) he sold his IP and disbanded Werner Erhard and Associates and moved on.
 * I believe you to be sincere in your dislike of the man and I believe you actually believe the fringe theory you have about it- but what is happening is you are now using the Landmark article as a WP:COATRACK to push your point of view.  Please stop edit warring on this. Perhaps there is a better article for you to discuss Werner Erhard on.... ?
 * Sincerely,  Alex Jackl (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Point by point. I follow your numbering:
 * Ad 1. Your displayed ignorance, disinterest, indifference and contempt for the facts do no prevent you from drawing false conclusions about my supposed POV and my position in encyclopedic matters. You had better devote yourself to the study of the subject.
 * Ad 2. Landmark is a rebranding of est as everyone who is vaguely familiar with the subject knows.
 * Ad 3. Erhard has never sold anything of the kind; he has licensed his intellectual property.
 * Ad 4. How do you know that it is an urban myth? All reliable sources agree that Erhard has been and still is a real presence behind the scenes.
 * Greetings, Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Tgeairn (& others): Reply, individual edits, etc
Given that this page is under Arbcom oversight I'm adding my response to your post on my user page here: There's a content dispute, anyone, regardless of who they are, making multiple edits that could have been explained as individual edits (as I earlier suggested on the talk page) is pushing good faith. Talk FIRST, later add individual CONSENSUS edits. And I'm yet to see bulk edits agreed by consensus on the Talk page. I won't defend every edit but the way this started and continued needs to be highlighted. (P.S. Don't sidetrack to a user page - it is arguable bullying & intimidation by singling contributors out when talk page discussion is continuing. Please don't. Article issues should be discussed on the article page). AnonNep (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the sidetrack. You haven't edited here on the talk page in over a month and you just made a large revert on the article that included material without consensus for its inclusion. Yes, individual edits are preferred (although other editors here have called making multiple small edits problematic as well).  As you said, the idea here is at least BRD and given the contentious nature should probably just start with D.  Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Aside from possible WP:BLP I completely disagree on 'delete first'. Any obvious BLP issues can be removed by anyone without discussion. What we're dealing with is content. Even worse than that, editors doing 'reverse original research' - i.e. deciding WP:RS doesn't suit their POV and suggesting we should debate that WP:RS or remove it. We don't have that right. We can argue on the phrasing of that WP:RS, we can add alternative WP:RS for weight/balance to add to it, but short of it being defamatory (and this isn't a BLP), we can't remove it because some don't like it. IMHO, that's where this page is getting bogged down - on what editors don't 'like'. It isn't policy. AnonNep (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 * My attempt at humour didn't land. I meant to start with "D - Discuss", rather than "B - Bold".  Otherwise, I agree with everything you said.  However, there is also no policy that says just because something exists then it needs to be included.  That's why we have content policies to deal with weight and fringe and such, and why we ultimately depend on consensus.  What you have here are editors forcing material into the article without consensus to do so.  Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider a BLP. General rule is, if in doubt delete but, equally, no matter how much the subject & their fans may dislike it, if it is an RS statement, it remains. Additional RS can always be added but never enough to make it 'disappear' entirely. ('Due Weight' can take a section, to a paragraph to a RS sentence with RS rebuttal but not complete removal. The 'due weight' policy doesn't allow that.) That's why every addition and deletion should be done one at a time and discussed on the Talk page, first, for a contentious article. Especially one under Arbcom oversight. AnonNep (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And there is similarly no policy or guideline which says it shouldn't be. And consensus, unfortunately, can and sometimes is hard to determine, as consensus is more or less determined on the basis of possible conduct which might run contrary to WP:GAME, WP:TAGTEAM, and any number of other standards of behavior. Particularly if there might exist evidence of a flawed consensus, other steps can and should reasonably be taken. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The chilling demand to get consensus prior to posting an edit was not a remedy applied in the arbcom decision. The only remedies passed were to invite additional editors to input, and that all edits (including reversions) be based in sources. Editing through deletions/reversions of cited material, based upon nothing more than uncited personal research, personal views and/or say-so (aka, WP:OR) is as much a direct violation of arbcom's injunction as would be inserting uncited statements into the article. There have been repeated episodes of blanking and reverting cited material going on here, and these have continued since the arbcom decision. If you cannot produce better sources to show why a statement cannot be retained, do not blank. If you have reliable sources expressing alternative viewpoints, then add that material without blanking material already there and referenced. • Astynax talk 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Full protection
I have fully protected this article for a month as an arbitration enforcement action in accordance with the Landmark Worldwide discretionary sanctions. I strongly suggest that all parties take this as an opportunity to resolve the recent disputes on this article as best they can. Casting aspersions or other misconduct, including edit-warring after the protection expires, is unacceptable and may well result in sanctions. Editors may wish to consider an RfC or some other form of formal or semi-formal dispute resolution. Any queries about this action or the standards of conduct can be directed to my talk page, it can also be formally appealed to AE. Note that this action cannot be reversed without my consent or consensus at a noticeboard. Any admins watching should remember that they are expected to respect the full protection and should only edit when doing so is entirely uncontroversial or supported by a clear consensus. HJ Mitchell |  Penny for your thoughts?  20:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's stick to the facts
During the recent Arbitration case, one of the Arbitrators suggested that the article would be served best by concentrating on facts rather than opinions. In recent days there has been a flurry of intense activity in the opposite direction. Perhaps it would be helpful in creating a neutral informative encyclopedia item if we trimmed it back to matters of fact, and then discussed how much in the way of opinions should be added and in what balance?

It seems to me that key factual statements might include the following:
 * Landmark is a business founded in 1991 which offers personal development training courses.
 * It offers courses in 115 locations in 24 countries around the world.
 * It has had over 2.2 million customers since its foundation.
 * Some of its customers are satisfied with the results they got from the courses, and others are not.
 * Independent surveys demonstrate that over 90% of the customers report being “highly satisfied”.

Perhaps other editors can suggest other firm facts that they feel should be included? DaveApter (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Facts include that Landmark is a direct continuation of the business founded in the 1970s with the brother and the lawyer of the founder now at the head. All the name changes and reorgs don't change that fact. Another fact is that there have been many critical things said and written about this organization, it's product and founder/management. We need balance and I fear that connected editors here are unwilling to allow either the history or the balance. Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been pointed out to you (repeatedly) that making unfounded accusations such as "connected editors" is a personal attack. Please cease. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There has never been any secrecy about the sequence of companies and courses, this article has always stated it clearly and explicitly. Of course there have been "many critical things said and written", (although much of this is uninformed, and a good deal of it deliberately malicious) and it is entirely correct to report that with due weight - alongside reporting the many positive things that have been said and written (which there seems to have been a concerted drive to remove lately). DaveApter (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 * If there is a lot of negative stuff published about a topic we report it accurately, especially when written by academics, journalists and experts. We don't whitewash the topic because you think it is uninformed or deliberately malicious. I have yet to see anything positive deleted here. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Why has all of the source-full material at http://www.cultnews.com/category/landmarkeducation/ not included here? Mr. Ross has compiled a lengthy list of wrongdoing by this group. The page won't allow edits right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoltAsResearch (talk • contribs) 02:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 30


text:
User:Steffany21/sandbox

-The Obama administration was responsible for funding $3 billion U.S dollars to the Green Climate Fund, that will no longer be available to be used towards climate change research. Therefore, a decrease in funds by the US will lessen the chances of being able to reach the Paris Agreement goals. Climate mitigation has a strict time frame that needs to be followed in order to have its goals met without having irreversible consequences, which are now at jeopardy due to Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. In addition, the U.S was responsible for more than 50% of the papers referenced to for climate change in 2015, so a cut in funding will impact U.S's contribution to the IPCC reports. Trump's termination of its funding to the Green Climate Fund can also have an impact on underdeveloped countries that are in need of that aid for its climate change projects.

-However, President Trump's decision to withdraw does not necessarily mean that it will affect US emissions since there is no direct link, but instead would mean that the U.S will no longer be regulated by the Paris Agreement once officially withdrawn. On the other hand, if the US is not regulated this can affect the carbon emission space. For example, "[u]nder the NDC target, the withdrawal of the U.S. will lead to increasing its own emission space by 14%, 28%, and 54% in the 20, 13, and 00 scenarios, respectively." Trump's withdrawal will also increase the carbon price for other countries while reducing its own carbon price.

When the withdrawal takes effect, the U.S. will be the only UNFCCC member states who is not a signatory to the Paris Agreement. At the time of the original withdrawal announcement, Syria and Nicaragua were also not participants; however, both Syria and Nicaragua have since ratified the agreement, leaving the U.S. the only UNFCCC member state intending to not be a party to the Agreement.

Luke Kemp of the Australian National University's Fenner School of Environment and Society wrote in a commentary for Nature that "withdrawal is unlikely to change US emissions" since "the greenhouse gas emissions of the US are divorced from international legal obligations." However, he added that it could hamper climate change mitigation efforts if the U.S. stops contributing to the Green Climate Fund. Kemp said the effect of a U.S. withdrawal could be either good or bad for the Paris agreement, since "a rogue US can cause more damage inside rather than outside of the agreement." Finally, "A withdrawal could also make the US into a climate pariah and provide a unique opportunity for China and the EU to take control of the climate regime and significantly boost their international reputations and soft power."

-On the other hand there is belief that China is not capable of taking control of the climate regime and instead should, "help rebuild global shared leadership by replacing the Sino–U.S. G2 partnership with a Climate 5 (C5) partnership that comprises China, the EU, India, Brazil, and South Africa."

title: User:Steffany21/sandbox


text:
Talk:Dennis Lipscomb

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 21:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dennis Lipscomb


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Young Global Leaders (2nd nomination)

The result was delete. Tone 08:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Young Global Leaders
AfDs for this article:
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Listcruft. Not a hugely notable group, but has its own article at Young Global Leaders, and an alternative to deletion is a redirect to Young Global Leaders - I would say it is too long to consider a merge/redirect. Worth listing at their own website but not a WP article. 2011 AfD was no consensus; it has sat in CAT:NN for over 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete There are more than 100 new Young Global Leaders each year, so this list will become even more unmanageable as time goes on. Even if only the notable inductees that have their own WP articles are included, the list is too long. I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to instead create a category for the members of this group. --Alan Islas (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Almost all the cited sources are from the organization's own web site or the web site of its parent organization, the World Economic Forum. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


text:
User:Ndcroos/Andrzej Wiśniewski (logician)

Andrzej Wiśniewski is a Polish logician. Currently, he is a full professor at the Department of Logic and Cognitive Science, Institute of Psychology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland.

He made contributions to erotetic logic, the logic of questions. He introduced the notion of Inferential Erotetic Logic (IEL), an approach to erotetic logic that focuses on inferences that can be made by asking questions. Ultimately, these inferences lead to questions as conclusions.


text:
Category talk:Award templates

Welcome to the Barnstorm (Barnstar Brainstorm)! This is where we discuss award templates for Wikiversity. This category is of special interest to the Template Taskforce.

WikiCookie Template
Hi all, I would like to give someone a wikicookie for welcoming me into this community. But the template doesn't exist here. Should I use a barnstar instead? I thought the wikicookie was slightly more appropriate for the type of recognition I wanted to impart. Thank you!--Ivangiesen (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 * See Import. Now imported. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Award templates


text:
Karl-Maria May

Karl-Maria May (20 May 1886 – 20 March 1963) was an Austrian painter. His work was part of the art competitions at the 1936 Summer Olympics and the 1948 Summer Olympics.

title: Karl-Maria May


text:
Colin Dow

Colin Dow (born c. 1988) is a Canadian curler from Ottawa.

In 2009, Dow lost the final of the Ontario junior mixed championship to Mark Kean, his future skip.

Dow played in his first provincial men's championship in 2010, playing second for the Bryan Cochrane rink. The team would go on to make it to the final of the event, losing to Glenn Howard in the final.

Dow took the 2013-14 season off to focus on getting a Master's Degree from the University of Waterloo. He returned in the 2014-15 season forming a new team with Ritchie Gillan, Brett Lyon-Hatcher and John Steski. They entered one WCT event, the 2014 Stroud Sleeman Cash Spiel, which they won. This was the first WCT event that Dow won his career. Dow and his team qualified for the 2015 Ontario Tankard. His team surprised many by making it to the playoffs, after posting a 6-4 round robin record. Following the round robin, they beat Greg Balsdon in a tiebreaker match, but lost to the Wayne Middaugh-skipped Peter Corner rink in the 3 vs. 4 game. In 2016, Gillan was replaced by Steve Allen. The team would not make it to another provincial.

In 2017, Dow joined the Mark Kean rink at third. On the tour, the team won the CookstownCash presented by Comco Canada Inc. The team played in the 2018 Ontario Tankard, just missing out on the playoffs. This team would only last one season, with Dow forming his own rink again in 2018 with Jordie Lyon-Hatcher, Brett Lyon-Hatcher and John Steski. The team qualified for the 2019 Ontario Tankard, finishing with a 2-7 record.

title: Colin Dow


text:
Nicco (disambiguation)

Nicco most often refers to Nicco Maniatty (born 1977), an American singer.

Nicco may also refer to:

 * Nicco (surname), an Italian surname
 * A variant of the name Nicolas
 * Nicco park, an amusement park located in Salt Lake City, Kolkata, India

title: Nicco (disambiguation)


text:
Lovely Anand

Lovely Anand is an Indian politician from the Janata Dal United, and a Member of Parliament representing Sheohar (Lok Sabha constituency) in Bihar, India and former Member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. She also served as a member of 10th Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Parliament of India.

She comes from a well connected political family as her mother's cousin Madhuri Singh was a member of parliament in 1980's from Congress party. But her political career started as the debutant candidate for the new Bihar People's Party established by her husband, Anand Mohan Singh, Lovely Anand had defeated a heavyweight parliamentarian Kishori Sinha, the wife of former Bihar Chief Minister Satyendra Narayan Sinha, in a 1994 Lok Sabha by-election in the north Bihar constituency of Vaishali. She did not contest the 1996 elections and failed to re-win it in those of 1999.

Kishori Sinha also happened to be mother in law of her cousin and former MP Shyama Singh (daughter of Madhuri Singh).

Anand has also twice been elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Bihar, winning once in Barh and again in Nabinagar.

Her husband is Anand Mohan Singh, whom she had married in 1991, and who had engineered her 1994 by-election success. He had twice been the MP for Sheohar, in 1996 and 1998, and his wife stood as a Samajwadi Party candidate there in the 2014 general election. She claimed that she had switched party allegiance because the Indian National Congress (INC) had "neglected" her after she had unsuccessfully stood as their candidate in that constituency in the 2009 national election and in the Alamnagar constituency at the 2010 Bihar Assembly elections.

In 2015, Anand became involved with the Hindustani Awam Morcha party and contested from Sheohar constituency. She lost the elections by a margin of around 400 votes.

Anand has continued to protest the innocence of her husband, standing for election on that basis and claiming that her husband is the victim of a political conspiracy and has never been a criminal or gang leader. She and some others had been found guilty in the same case as that of her husband, which was determined in 2007 when she was a member of the JDU party, but she later obtained bail and was acquitted on appeal to the High Court.

Anand has a BA degree from Ranchi University. She and her husband have 2 sons and a daughter; her son, Chetan Anand, has also expressed a desire to be elected.

title: Lovely Anand


text:
1964 Memphis State Tigers football team

The 1964 Memphis State Tigers football team represented Memphis State College (now known as the University of Memphis) as an independent during the 1964 NCAA University Division football season. In its seventh season under head coach Billy J. Murphy, the team compiled a 5–4 record and outscored opponents by a total of 173 to 103. Chuck Brooks and Bob Finnamore were the team captains. The team played its home games at Crump Stadium in Memphis, Tennessee.

The team's statistical leaders included Billy Fletcher with 921 passing yards and 367 rushing yards, Ray Farmer with 222 receiving yards, and John Wallace Wright with 24 points scored.

title: 1964 Memphis State Tigers football team


text:
Talk:Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol

Dodosolsollarasol
It seems to me that this should be spelled as Dodosolsollalasol  istead of Dodosolsollarasol

These is the beginning of the ABC-Song also known as

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgen_kommt_der_Weihnachtsmann

and

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ah_!_vous_dirai-je,_maman — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 * The current title is how Netflix and other sources have chosen to spell the title in English. Evaders99 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Do Do Sol Sol La La Sol


text:
Sogratl

Sogratl (Согратль; СугъралӀ) is a rural locality (a selo) and the administrative centre of Sogratlinsky Selsoviet, Gunibsky District, Republic of Dagestan, Russia. The population was 2,360 as of 2010. There are 4 streets.

Geography
Sogratl is located 25 km south of Gunib (the district's administrative centre) by road, on the Tsamtichay River. Obokh and Shangoda are the nearest rural localities.

title: Sogratl


text:
Wikibooks:Templates/Stubs

At Wikibooks, stubs are short, apparently incomplete modules.

Typically, a stub appears because someone creates a new chapter or module of a book which is missing most of the intended content. Stubs tend to contain only a brief description or a suggestion of what the content should be. An incomplete table of contents is also a stub. (If the module only contains nonsense, then it can be marked for speedy deletion.)

Templates
You can use stub to mark any stub. When one section of a module is a stub, then you can use sectstub.

The incomplete marker does not add the page to any category. Some users prefer this to the stub marker.

Templates for specific books or WikiProjects
Notes:
 * The green background is not a requirement for these templates.
 * Template:Specific book stub is a meta-template for book stubs

ja:Wikibooks:スタブ

title: Wikibooks:Templates/Stubs


text:
Violoncello

The violoncello or cello is a bowed or plucked string instrument with four strings.

Posture
Good posture is important when playing the violoncello (commonly known as the cello). The player should be relaxed, balanced, and comfortable, sitting upright on the edge of the chair. The cello is held between the knees, also resting on the chest, and the neck of the cello a couple of inches above the left shoulder. The length of the endpin should be such that it allows the cello to be at around 45 degree angle to the floor while resting on the player's sternum.

Preparatory exercises
The player should warm up with exercises aimed at the flexibility and strength of the hands.

Bowing
The bow should be drawn left to right (and back), parallel to the bridge. The best point of contact (hair on string) is half-way between the bridge and the end of the fingerboard. The goal is to produce a clear, resonant tone. For starters, the cellist should try to play on only one string, playing repeated notes of equal length, until the sound is good and the bow hold becomes more familiar.

Start by playing repeated notes on every string, then combinations of alternating strings. Different rhythm patterns can be used.

Putting force into the bow and having a strong hold is very important to the sound that it produces on the string. If you are unsure if you are playing the wrong note do not play quitely because this causes you to make a very screechy abd sound on the strings.

To practice putting force into the bow try this : hold it with your fist instead of your fingers. Now bow. Do you hear/feel the difference? Now hold the bow by the tip and bow, the frog puts weight on the bow to make a nice sound across the strings. Now hold the bow normally, flex your fingers and try to recreate the sound you just had. This does not mean to press down too much but to apply correct and even pressure on the strings during the whole bowing action.

The cello strings are, from highest (thinnest) to lowest (thickest): A, D, G, and C.

Left Hand
Fingers are numbered thus:

 * 1) First finger - index finger
 * 2) Second finger - middle finger
 * 3) Third finger - ring finger
 * 4) Fourth finger - little finger

The thumb is also used, mostly in upper positions.

When the left hand is placed next to the player's chin, it is called first position. There are five "neck" positions (1/2 through 4th), three "transitional" positions (5th-7th), after which there is "thumb" position (thumb comes from under the neck and is positioned on top of the strings, while the 4th finger rarely plays). The positions grow in number as the player's hand moves toward the bridge of the cello.

Thin tapes or stickers can be used to mark the placement of fingers on the fingerboard and increase consistency of intonation. As this becomes more secure, visual reminders can be removed, and the player relies on listening for good intonation.

Left hand fingers should be perpendicular to the string ("little hammers"), stopping the string on the fingerboard, in order to produce a clear pitch. The left hand thumb is positioned behind the second finger, centering the hand and facilitating extensions (stretches) and vibrato. The hand should not squeeze the neck of the cello.

Scales
Scales and finger exercises are fundamental to left hand technique and knowledge of the fingerboard. They should be practiced regularly, with centered intonation, and projecting sound. A variety of bowings and rhythms can be used.

title: Violoncello