Where did Theobald Tiger or the article ever state that Erhard is pulling the strings Your accusation itself misrepresents as would having the article state that Erhard only is peripheral Erhard may or may not have direct control so but no one has suggested that such a statement be included in the article without a source That Erhard continued to own the intellectual property that is the essence of the product being marketed by Landmark is also significant involvement That Erhard s companies and trusts continued to receive income from Landmark is significant involvement That Erhard continued to consult is significant involvement That Erhard continued to hold ownership of Forum operations in Mexico and Japan is significant involvement That Erhard continues to develop his philosophies in conjunction with Landmark employees is significant involvement That this type of involvement is exactly the same murky setup that existed under Erhard Seminars Training Inc prior to 1985 is notable as well The really really weak argument here is the POV attempt s to make the article reflect Landmark s long time marketing attempts to distance Landmark and its offerings from Erhard and est Nor is the History section anything like WP UNDUE which simply says that the weight in articles should be proportional to the coverage given in reliable references In this case there are other sections that need to be fleshed out based on independent sources notably the section on The Forum itself but it is a perversion of policy to use UNDUE as an excuse to go around slashing cited material from other sections It is also misreading to argue that WP UNDUE means the article should be balanced based upon editors points of view biases or conclusions from original research self published marketing materials etc