Talk:Tvind

Split article

To be honest, I found the article - as it stands - a bit of a mess. Convoluted and with many different viewpoints very much in separate parts.

Could it be an idea to split the Tvind related stuff into several articles: e.g. the Tvind teachers group, the associated schools, charities and companies in separate articles. I would like to help, but working on this article as it is now is a bit daunting.

Love to hear your thoughts.

Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't infringe copyrights

"Don't infringe copyrights" is one of Wikipedia's key policies. On 26 Feb 2006, a large amount of text from the external website "Brief information on Tvind" by Danish historian Jes Fabricius Møller was copy-pasted into the article without his permission (even though the unregistered editor stated it was "Courtesy of Information on Tvind").

I e-mailed Jes Fabricius Møller (in Danish) on 6 March 2006, asking him if he had granted permission for his text to be reproduced in the article. He answered that, although he is an ardent supporter of Wikipedia, he purposely has not contributed to the Wikipedia article on Tvind because he has his own website and there is a link to it in the "External links" section of the article. (Like most people, he prefers that people ask his permission in advance if they wish to use his material.)

Therefore, and because articles become bloated and unencyclopedic if large portions of text found at other websites is just copy-pasted into them, I reverted 71.246.75.95's 26 Feb 2006 edit to the last preceding version. All of Møller's interesting information and commentary is still just a mouseclick away – through the "External links" section of the article.

--Bwiki 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cult?

The NPOV status of this article is questionable. Right from the start, it accuses them of being a cult without any sources. -- LGagnon 23:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The article says It is accused of being a cult. And that is true - many people have accused the organization of being a cult. In fact, the issue of the cultishness of the organization is one of the most important aspects of the organization. If the wording in the article was "Tvind is a cult", THAT would be POV.

As for "without any sources", many, if not most wikipedia articles still don't have references embedded in the article; the sources are external links. This makes it harder to find the source of any text, but it doesn't mean that text lacks sources. In this case, if you look in the "criticism" subsection, you'll find, among other things, a link to the "Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements" (and I suspect that most other links in the section also are to articles that use the word "cult").

If you have contrary evidence (for example, a statement in a reputable source that goes "However, unlike cults, Tvind does not XXX ... ", or "Tvind is not a cult because ...:, or even a denial from the organization that it is a cult), then please add it, plus a link, so that the reader can know that the "cult" accusation is disputed. John Broughton 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added some sources which accuse Tvind of being a cult. Since the NPOV complaint was based on this accusation being unsourced, I've also removed the NPOV dispute. --Apeloverage 12:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

With respect to this statement-- "or even a denial from the organization that it is a cult"-- you will not have much luck. The fundamental problem with this article (and most media reportage) is that it conflates the Teachers Group with the various entities operating at a place called Tvind in Denmark. The schools at Tvind are independent organizations incorporated in accordance with Danish law. The Teachers Group as such is a legal non-entity. It is simply a group of people (more than 1,000 strong) who have agreed to certain principles that are covered in the article. So, what would be fitting? A denial from (for example) the teacher training college at Tvind? Denials from all "Tvind schools" listed in the article? What you will not get will be a denial from the TG, because this idea of a "global corporation" is complete fantasy. You will not find articles of incorporation or a charter or by-laws for the TG as such, because none exist. The TG is simply a group of people working in cooperation-- there is no press office to issue such a statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.48.90 (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

List of all Tvind Schools‎

Moved from the redundant article List of all Tvind Schools‎. No claims to WP:A or WP:N mentioned or claimed. --Triwbe (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wanted by Interpol appears to be a lie?

As I understand it they were listed by interpol, eventually arrested tried and acquitted; the acquittal was appealed but now they need to be served papers, and once served papers should they fail to appear in court they will again be wanted by interpol. I was unable to find any evidence of "Mogens" or "Petersen" being on an Interpol list through the Interpol web site, though it does seem to be pathetic.

I strongly suspect ground axes here: NPOV 76.126.215.43 (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's what the Jyllands-Posten said on January 20, 2009:

"Prosecutors appealed the verdicts of the district court, but five of the remaining Tvind members, including the organisation's founder and leader, Mogens Amdi Petersen, disappeared shortly after the 2006 trial. The five are now wanted by Interpol and stand to face further charges in the High Court."

http://jp.dk/uknews/article1576016.ece

Saskehavis (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tvind Alert is an attack group?

I suppose one could see it that way, although the directors of Tvind Alert are professional journalists who strive to properly source the information contained on their website.

I don't represent Tvind Alert, but to "ohnoitsjamie", if you take issue with my inclusion of several references to information posted at Tvind Alert, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this.

The numerous testimonials that Tvind Alert has received from former volunteers of alleged Tvind-related organizations are for real.

The reports concerning Humana groups getting into trouble with various governments in Europe are also legitimate. However, I will try to track down every single one of them, even if I have to personally contact the respective governments of Europe.

By the way, ohnoitsjamie, why have you not bothered with editing the content in the first section of the Tvind entry? By the way, I have had nothing to do with that section except to make a few spelling corrections. That section doesn't even have references. Why are you instead snipping out huge chunks of my work in the "allegations" section, where I have done my best to cite references?

Lord knows, I'm not a professional at editing Wikipedia, but I have taken the time to sweat through the Wiki tutorials to gradually learn how everything is properly done. I am improving. In addition, I work full time, so I can't go as fast as I'd like to in terms of getting everything up to speed in the "allegations" portion of the entry.

There is basis for everything included in the "allegations" section — the critics are not simply dreaming it up. In time the citing of sources will improve.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saskehavis (talk • contribs) 04:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sites such as TvindAlert do not meet our WP:Reliable sources guidelines. There are plenty of better sources with similar information; I suggest checking out the SDReader article in the external links section. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, then please explain to me why you are doing *nothing* about the first section of the entry, that has no citations at all, and apparently was copied without permission from someone's article, if I've read things correctly.

Another question I have is, do you have the authority of Wikipedia to summarily snip out material that I've spent hours diligently trying to put together?

Furthermore, I see countless other Wikipedia entries that are far from perfect, yet no one seems to be doing anything about them.

All I'm saying is that it looks rather suspicious that all of a sudden you have saw fit to start hacking up my hard work, but leaving be the other part of the entry, even though it has obvious problems.

I plan to contest what you're doing, once I figure out how, or get expert assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saskehavis (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification and questions

Just to be clear, I, @saskehavis, have been developing only the section titled, "Allegations of organised criminal activity." With the exception of a a few "mercy" edits in most of the top half of the entry (i.e. "International work," and "History"), where there were several grammatical errors, I've generally left it alone, except of course for that last paragraph in the introduction, which starts with "Tvind has long been embroiled in controversy."

I felt that the Tvind entry was started by someone who was pro-Tvind, possibly not a native speaker of English, and who was unfamiliar or unconcerned with Wikipedia's guidelines for encyclopedic standards.

Not that I'm a big Wikipedia expert myself, but upon first encountering this Tvind entry a few years ago, I noticed that the section criticising Tvind was small, somewhat poorly written and the references could have used some improving.

In the interest of balance, endeavoured to develop particularly the section outlining the controversial aspects of Tvind, as the group is certainly generating a storm of bad publicity, much of it coming from reputable sources.

I never foresaw how involved the editing procedures for this entry would become for me.

I also realise it may be confusing to have a Wikipedia entry written by at least two people, one who is apparently in favor of the group being discussed but isn't concerned with referencing and the like, while yet another person is developing a criticism section and striving to include sound references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saskehavis (talk • contribs) 21:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Citations, please?

To "Wawelength": if you are making the effort to "proofread," "update" and "correct" the first section of the Tvind entry, your first priority should be the inclusion of inline citations to support the material that you're adding. As you may know, for several years, there have been few or no citations in the first sections of this article (before the "Allegations" section). And now your recent contributions also have very few references to show support for what you are writing.

Furthermore, this is an English language article, so adding a lot of Danish language references isn't fair to the large majority of English speakers worldwide who don't understand Danish. Do you know of any English language references you can use?

Please forgive me if this seems impolite, but I'm curious to know whether or not you are a native speaker of English, as your contributions often have odd phrasings, word choices and grammar that are most uncommon — and potentially confusing — to those whose first language is English. In addition, you have, as I've already mentioned, added a few external links to Danish language articles. Just curious.

As a native English speaker for nearly 50 years, I'm happy to assist you with making revisions to your contributions, which may improve the readability of your content. I promise not to change the basic content and meaning of your contribution; I'll only render it more readable. My overriding goal is to help build a well-written and encyclopedic article about Tvind

But again, you need to include references for all of your material — in English — as this is one of Wikipedia's basic rules. Thank you. Saskehavis (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Danish language sources are allowed

To Saskehavis: I have searched Wikipedia.org for guidelines supporting your above criteria that only references in English are allowed. I found no such criteria, guideline or rule. You have no authority to do so, when you are deleting proper references in the Danish language stating ”Sorry, but references should be in ENGLISH only, please”. WP is an encyclopaedia, and proper references should not be disallowed or deleted just because they only present themselves in Danish. A Danish Supreme Court judgement is a proper reference in the Danish language, when not publicised in English. As already Saddhiyama said in the history page 21.15, 27 December 2011: ’Danish language sources are allowed.’ And I will therefore undo your ’ENGLISH only’-based deletion of proper references in the Danish language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wawelength (talk • contribs) 11:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Without making a comment on other matters of this dispute I just want to quote the relevant policy: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." The last sentence is the important one here. English sources are preferred, but if there is a lack of English sources, or there are non-English sources of greater quality and relevance, they can and should be used. A translation of the relevant parts of the source provided in the inline citation would be appreciated, but is not strictly necessary. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Then why even have separate sections of Wikipedia that are in all of those other languages? Why not just jumble them all together and let, for example, English speakers try to wade through articles and reference material in Greek and Albanian? Why not simply allow Thai speakers to struggle with deciphering entries and citations in a mix of Croatian, Russian and Hindi? How much learning do you think would take place in such scenarios? The answer is about zero.

99.92% of the Earth's population does not speak Danish. So what do you think the average person is going to do when they see your citations using Danish language articles? Translation websites such as Google are very rarely accurate, and even at best, the precise content will certainly be lost. You might as well post citations in Arabic or Chinese. And what of your sources that apparently are not even posted online?

Wawelength, are you fluent in Arabic? If you aren't, then how would you feel if, at a Danish college, you took a course in, say, history, and the instructor surprised the class by announcing that some of the study materials and lectures were going to be in Arabic? Wouldn't that seriously impede your learning of the course material?

Again, this is an English language section of Wikipedia, and nearly everyone using it can not understand Danish. You are thus placing an extremely unfair burden on anyone who wants to investigate all of your citations to see if they really do support your added material. Are you willing to provide professional translations of these Danish materials so the rest of us can read them?

In my opinion, your citations, while perhaps suitable for a Danish language Wiki, are basically useless for non Danish speakers who want to investigate your sources. As you may have gathered, Tvind is already a vast and often confusing subject. Do you honestly feel that loading up an English language article with Danish citations that only one out of 1,250 people can read will result in learning? Think again.

I therefore contest your Danish language references on the grounds that they are not accessible to the vast majority of English speakers. Again, you are certainly welcome to contribute to the Wikipedia article on Tvind in Danish, which by now I assume is your native language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saskehavis (talk • contribs) 21:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Saskehavis, you need to take your grievances about the current policy up on the talk page of the relevant policy, not here. Danish language sources are permitted as has been stated above, and with the current state of tools like Google Translate it is actually not that difficult for non-Danish speakers to get a very good grip of the meaning of Danish texts. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Actually, while English-language sources are preferred, we do permit non-English sources per this, as long as those sources meet the reliable sources criteria. Also, you made a statement on my talk page regarding American/British English; the spelling variant used in an article does not default to British, but rather follows WP:ENGVAR guidelines. In the case of Tvind, and examination of the article's history shows that British spelling was used in the original versions of the article, and thus should remain as the spelling variant of the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Jamie, I can't believe what you are telling me. Who on earth is going to have the time and ability to decipher references if they're in Danish? Fact: globally, only about one person out of 1,250 speaks Danish. That's about the same statistic for speakers of Hebrew and Mongolian. Furthermore, while machine translations may possibly give one a "gist" of the content, they're rarely accurate, despite all of the hype. Of course, any serious student or researcher won't be satisfied with simply the gist of an article.

Saddhiyama, "Getting a grip" is different from getting accurate information. I have spoken with native speakers of dozens of languages from around the world, and those with any experience with online translation tools have confirmed that such tools are terribly inaccurate in most instances, and thus can not be relied upon. Some even refer to translation tools as "toys." I'm inclined to agree.

Let me ask you this: would you, in your home town, pay to take a college course on some subject of interest to you, when, to your surprise, the professor hands out class materials that were originally written in, say, Farsi, but had been conveniently Google translated into English? How many serious errors might there be in such a translation? There would likely be thousands, rendering the material essentially useless.

In such a scenario, would you actually learn anything? Wouldn't you feel that you'd been ripped off? I know I would.

Many of Wawelength's source materials in English are simply pages on known Tvind-run websites. As poorly written as most of those webpages are, and as rhetoric-laden as they tend to be, I could let those issues go, as at least these are references in English. But I do wonder about how such sources — many of which read like company brochures — would conform to Neutral Point of View guidelines.

After all, Jamie, last summer you summarily deleted several paragraphs of my contribution to the Tvind article precisely because the source material was from what you labeled an "attack site" (Tvind Alert). On the other hand, much of other contributors' reference material comes directly from (or from branches of) the very organization that is the article's topic. While this might be OK for a few citations, shouldn't there be a limit? Wouldn't an editor need to show support for his/her material from more mainstream and respected sources? This is particularly important because many observers have noted that much, if not all, of the favorable reports on Tvind and its subsidiaries come from somewhere within the Tvind organization itself.

I expect that the same standards should apply to all contributors.

Some of Wawelength's Danish references are apparently about court proceedings concerning the Tvind schools in Denmark. As you know, legal language is full of precise terminology and intricate meanings that take lawyers and judges years to master. Machine translated text is said not to be admissible in court because such text is not reliable. My point is that any non Danish speaker attempting to learn the details of court proceedings in Denmark from Wawelength's sources would have a rather daunting task, even using Google Translate.

My lawyer tells me she'd be laughed out of court if she dared to submit evidence that was in a foreign language and machine translated into English. She says that she'd have to hire a professional translator to translate then certify the translated documents. Cost: likely hundreds of dollars!

By the way, Wawelength, as you're so keen on using Danish language references, you might want to view the following TV2 documentary about Tvind. It's in Danish, but if anyone here doesn't know that language, simply listen very carefully, and one may get a very good grip of the meaning of the Danish speech: [1]

Why is Wikipedia split up into various language sections? Is that possibly because most people are fluent only in one language? Would it then be fair to expect the average student in, say, Turkey, to study chemistry from, say, Danish textbooks and webpages on the subject? Of course it wouldn't. But wait, you say; the Turkish students could just run everything through Google Translate and all would be fine. I'm afraid that that's simply unrealistic.

Why should it be any different on Wikipedia?

In my opinion, the guideline allowing references to be provided in any language is among the biggest impediments to learning on Wikipedia. That guideline needs to be challenged, as it's extremely unfair to potentially burden those seeking knowledge with material in a foreign language.

According to one of the guidelines that you included in your reply, "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy."

I plan to investigate whether or not any source material actually supports its relevant content in the Tvind entry. And I have several Danish friends to help me. I will certainly alert the contributor of any problems I find and ask him/her to either correct the error or to provide an accurate translation of the relevant material. Saskehavis (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

To new editors: please learn how to properly format your references

I've noticed several new references that need to be properly formatted. One problem in particular is that a new editor is using the same references more than once, which, without the “shortcut,” takes up unnecessary space in the Notes section.

For example, @Wawelength has used the same reference three times, currently (as of 2012/1/2) citations #8, #10 and #11. (“Press release dated 19 February 1999 with Judgment passed by the Supreme Court on Friday, 19 February 1999.”) Let us set aside for the moment that this citation may be lacking key information (i.e. WHERE did you find this press release, and WHICH Supreme Court are you referring to?).

Please study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners for more basic information on creating inline citations. Be sure to look at the sections “Same reference used more than once,” “References not online” as well as “Information to include.”

You can also check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

Wavelength, I left those 3 repeated references “Press release dated 19 February 1999...” for you to try to consolidate into one. Good luck. Saskehavis (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent Inserts in Introduction repeating content from allegation section

I have undone the recent inserts repeating content from the allegation section ”Allegations of organised criminal activity and cult status (references here are all in English)”. The inserts at this point are moreover suited to confuse readers.Wawelength (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, I don't think that I'm confusing readers at all. I've moved the paragraph in question down into my contribution, where I would like it to remain. Also see my response to your next comment, below. Saskehavis (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Another recent insert in the Introduction

I have undone a recent insert of a so-called restored paragraph repeating content from the allegation section “Allegations of organized criminal activity and cult status (references here are all in English)” and a “2001 case summary by Danish police and Denmark’s Public Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime” already quoted extensively in the allegation section. The basic allegations contained in the said case summary were not upheld by the courts acquittals and are by their very nature not suited for repetition in an introduction to an article in an encyclopaedia. You may find the courts own summary reprinted in the Danish daily “Politiken” on the 31st August 2006: http://politiken.dk/indland/fakta_indland/ECE167715/laes-dommen/ under the heading “Laes dommen” [“Read the verdict”]. Wawelength (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No one is perfect, including me, but considering the way your contribution looks, I find it utterly astonishing that you would try to teach me anything about writing. Do you realise how many errors are in your contribution? I'm talking about grammatical and spelling errors, as well as poorly formatted citations. Maybe some repetition. It's a bit too long in places as well. And, in my opinion, your contribution is rife with high-flown rhetoric, which native speakers of English are generally going to notice. Just my opinion. So, please, just work at correcting and improving your own material. Thank you.

By the way, the 10th paragraph in "Criminal allegations and 2 verdicts" contains a serious factual error:

"The above four persons not having received the notice of appeal have been living abroad before becoming indicted and left Denmark after being acquitted and before the decision by the prosecution to appeal the acquittals. No court in Denmark has admitted the appeal by the prosecution and the above four persons are not 'fugitives' from the law."

The reality, sir, is that Amdi Petersen and other Tvind Teachers Group leaders have been sought by Danish police for five years. In April of 2012, Denmark's court of appeals — Vestre Landsret — ruled that the public prosecutors' summons for the Tvind appeal case does not need to be served by hand, as is normal jurisprudence. Rather, a formal announcement in Denmark's official website "Statstidende" is sufficient.

And I found references supporting this ... in Danish:

• The announcement in "Statstidende":

http://www.statstidende.dk/default.aspx?pg=48.1.-1.-1&serial=S13072011-110&date=26.08.2011

• Brief summary on the Vestre Landsret ruling:

http://www.b.dk/nationalt/tvind-ankesag-rykker-naermere

To reiterate: Contrary to what other contributors have written, The Tvind Teachers Group's top leaders have been wanted by Danish police for five years. For those here who can't read Danish (ahem), here's a little something about this in English: http://tvindnewsupdate.blogspot.com/2012/04/no-need-to-serve-summons-by-hand.html

It is now up to Denmark's Supreme Court to decide whether or not to uphold the prosecution's unconventional attempt to notify the Tvind leaders. http://www.dr.dk/P4/Vest/Nyheder/MidtVest/2012/06/06/06174954.htm

I just thought that you'd like to know of these latest developments so you can make the necessary updates to your material. Saskehavis (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Biased writing

Even if the content of the sentences are correct, I sense a considerable bias toward the movement itself and against the public, etc. I'd like to rewrite it myself, as the topic is highly interesting; unfortunately I don't know much about the movement (I was sent to this article from a page explaining used clothes containers) except from the 1997 Supreme Court ruling.

As for references; these will necessarily have to be in Danish as the English ones are few and far between. The number of people reading Danish in the world is not a valid argument -- the real number is somthing closer to 1 in 600 overall, and the topic is uninteresting to the most of the world. As for a professor handing out material in Farsi; no, that hasn't happened, if it's not in Danish, Norwegian, Swedish or English most of it gets translated. If I'm interesting in a matter pertaining mostly to Chinese readers, I'll just have to suck it up and rely on Google Translate, myself, my friends or the Chinese Department if I want quality, first hand accounts. One cannot demand the BBC to back up claims all over the world just because one is lazy and doesn't know any other languages. 84.238.43.239 (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To "84.238.43.239": You write: "The number of people reading Danish in the world is not a valid argument -- the real number is somthing (sic) closer to 1 in 600 overall."

Incorrect. World population: about 7,000,000,000. Danish speakers in world: about 5,600,000. 7,000,000,000 divided by 5,600,000 = 1,250. Only about one in 1,250 people in the world speak Danish.

You seem to have entirely missed the point of the example about the professor handing out material in Farsi.

I reiterate that practically speaking, the references in Danish are utterly useless for those who don't know that language, which is just about everyone — 99.92% of the world. That's reality. In my opinion, contributors who are adding Danish language references are, essentially, asking readers to just "take their word for it," and that is never a good idea.

Your faith in Google Translate is unfortunate, as it makes a lot of mistakes. The Google Translate, I mean. If anyone had to rely on Google Translate in a life-and-death situation, he would very likely find this out the hard way.

And people aren't "lazy because they don't know any other languages." What an unrealistic assessment! Some people have to work for a living, and have no time to become fluent in several other languages, let alone just one.

It's reasonable that readers of English language Wikipedia would expect all the material to be in English. How could that seem unreasonable? Why even have a Spanish Wikipedia, a Russian Wikipedia, or Chinese Wikipedia? Why separate these at all? Why not just allow a new entry to be started in say, Dutch, then someone who knows Dutch but also speaks Hindi can contribute additional content in Hindi. And the next editor can throw some Japanese in — all in the same article. Taking the "references can be in any language" rule to its extreme, what we'd end up with is a lot of useless gibberish.

Some can live in their dream worlds of how things should be, but the reality is that people strongly prefer information to be in a language that they're fluent in — small wonder. And most people are really only fluent in one language. No, that doesn't make them "lazy," for goodness' sake.

As for my contribution, I've worked hard to write clearly and concisely, stick to the facts, and to track down support for my English language statements in the English language. By the way, there's more documentation on Tvind in English than one might imagine, and there's even more on the way. Saskehavis (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Saskehavis, you are missing about a dozen million people: Most Norwegians and Swedes read Danish, as do the Swedish-speaking Finns. The Scandinavian languages are mutually intelligible, even more so in written than in spoken form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.243.100 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

So I'm missing a dozen million people who can decipher Danish? Well, if that's really true that most Norwegians and Swedes speak Danish, that would make the grand total of Danish readers about 20 million. So instead of only about 1 out of 1200 people on earth understanding Danish, we have the new estimate of 1 out of 400 being fluent in that language. Expressed as a percentage, it's no longer just .085% of the world's citizens knowing Danish, but a massive .28%. Hey, that leaves only 7,105,000,000 folks — or 99.72% of the planet's population — that can't make heads nor tails out of Danish. With these newly revised figures, I finally see how right you are, Mr. 217.144.243.100. How could I have been so mistaken? Saskehavis (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Biased Writing

"There has been a consensus that everything "Tvind" was fair game for the media." , at best, needs to be a quote of someone else, not an assertion of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brycen (talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This whole article except for the last section (fine work there Saskehavis) seems incredibly pro-Tvind.

"Controversies emerged as the school programs were groundbreaking," and

"Some mistakes were made on the part of the schools and not all issues were handled in the best way. Such mistakes were often taken out of their context and used by media and others to create a fuss, earn money or create opposition," are pretty blatant examples. If only I had the time or knowledge to rework a long article... AVAAGAA↪ 18:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Avaagaa! Yes, I know that this entire wiki needs a lot of work. I have been wanting to update my contribution for over a year, but I've been very busy otherwise. I hope to continue work on this wiki during the coming winter.

There are indeed contributors to this wiki who are decidedly biased in favor of Tvind. I suspect that at least a few of them are likely students at Tvind's "schools" in Denmark or elsewhere, who have been assigned the task of loading up this wiki with a lot of brochure-talk and a thorough whitewashing of the criminal and cult allegations that have dogged Tvind for decades. One of the purposes of all that wiki-verbiage, I feel, is to in effect bury any credible discussion of these allegations, which I've tried to show are very well-documented.

The reason why I suspect Tvind's own students are behind the pro-Tvind texts is because I'm acquainted with how many of them write. Everything there seems to match up. Just my opinion.

I've researched Tvind for five years and have access to a combined 40 years of research from others. With this knowledge, I can offer the further opinion that in their attempt to dismiss the criminal and cult allegations against Tvind leaders — five of whom are Interpol fugitives — they use what is called the "straw man argument," which is to reconstruct and misrepresent the position of one's opponent in such a way as to render it easy to refute. Of course, to be successful, a straw man argument requires that the reader be uninformed about the original argument and its supporting evidence.

So it's understandable why creating a cohesive open-content article on Tvind might be difficult: there are those editors who would prefer this wiki to be purely a brochure for Tvind, without any mention of the controversy, or of Tvind's vast commercial empire — amply documented by Danish prosecutors — and its close ties with Tvind's schools and self-described humanitarian programs. On the other hand, there are people such as myself who want to show the complete picture and set out the facts as clearly as possible, regardless of how unpleasant they may be. I don't know how to resolve the conflict but to just make my contribution the best it can be, and not let it be summarily deleted by others, as has happened more than once over the last couple of years. Saskehavis (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to be a genius to realize that pretty much this whole article has been slowly rewritten by Tvind-people to water down legitimate criticism. Having read literature on the subject, knowing ex-members, this article simply is hogwash. Sadly I haven't got the time to correct all the BS and monitor this article, but wow this is brazen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.66.113 (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"Controversies and opposition"

The entire section reproduced below seems written entirely from the perspective of Tvind, with the intention to dispute any reported accusations. The wording is opinionated, giving undue weight to irrelevant detail while failing to convey the substance of the relevant controversies. There are probably some good sources cited, but the section needs to be totally rewritten from a neutral point of view. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As the number of schools grew in the '70s, '80s and '90s from 1 to 30, as the number of students exploded, and as the financial support received from the government grew proportionally — suspicion emerged. Controversies emerged as the school programs were groundbreaking, as the challenges for students and teachers were very high, as the pedagogical ideas were put into practice, and as many new thoughts were formed and expressed and put into action. The programs dealt with some of the pressing issues at the time — such as what happens in the world today, how teachers shall be educated, what to do with so-called "difficult" students when such ideas were put into action — and disagreement and even anger emerged. Opposition was raised over the impact of 30 schools emerging in 25 years with total new and challenging programs in a tiny country with an area of 42,915.7 km2 and a population of 5,659,715.

Some mistakes were made on the part of the schools and not all issues were handled in the best way. Such mistakes were often taken out of their context and used by media and others to create a fuss, earn money or create opposition.

Investigations by authorities

The Danish authorities carried out extra investigations to check if everything was in order. For example, the Danish Public Accounts Committee made a special investigation in 1979-80, the tax authorities made a special investigation in 1995-1997, and the police made an unannounced visit to check visas of all foreign students in 1993. The only irregularities found were minor, disputable, and corrected subsequently when needed.

Politicians and political opposition

Some politicians were in opposition and some supported the schools. Now and then questions from the members of Parliament to ministers led to investigations. The opposition grew and led the Minister of Education to declare he wanted the schools to be closed, but it could not be done administratively because the schools adhered to the laws of the country. Therefore, a Special Act withdrawing government support from named schools was put before the Parliament and passed.

The schools and their pedagogy had not any political affiliation but have received fierce criticism and opposition from the right for being left wing as well as from the left for being authoritarian and using capitalistic approaches.

Supreme Court of Denmark

As described above the full court of eleven Supreme Court Justices declared unanimously the special act unconstitutional. It was the first and only time in the 150 years of the Danish constitution an act had been declared unconstitutional.

Criminal allegations and two verdicts

In 2001 and 2002, eight individuals from the Teachers Group were charged with embezzlement and tax fraud against a private foundation which had as its purpose to support humanitarian causes, to protect the environment and to promote research. The allegations were that these eight had caused funds to be used for private and commercial purposes and not for the purpose of the foundation. Seven of the eight persons were fully acquitted after 160 days of hearings in court. One person received a suspended jail sentence of one year for acts he had admitted before the hearings started. This happened in 2006. The verdict filled 4,200 pages.

In Denmark the prosecution can appeal an acquitting verdict to a higher court (contrary to common law jurisdictions as USA and England) and it did so in relation to six of the original eight but on a limited scope of the original charges. In Denmark, however, a notice of appeal has to be served personally. Five of the six persons had not been living in Denmark for several up to fifteen years and returned to their home countries after the acquittal without being served with an appeal.

The appeals were only made 12 days after the acquittals and subsequent to demands made publicly by the chairman of the Legal Commission of the Danish Parliament and other politicians.

The notice of appeal was served for the one person living in Denmark. The appeal trial has been completed and that person was declared guilty and received a jail sentence of 30 months, which was served in an open prison. Later a notice of appeal was served for one more person. No notice of appeal has been served for the remaining four.

Some media and politicians did not make any distinction between the above schools and the individuals indicted and later acquitted in this criminal matter. They forget that no schools were involved in the trials and seven of the eight persons were fully acquitted. It has been said more than once that the media has been playing to the tune of the prosecution, by legal experts and by others.

The criminal matter has further been described as Denmark's legal showdown with "Tvind". It has been added that this criminal matter undoubtedly forms part of a greater context of a political nature.

The above four persons not having received the notice of appeal have been living abroad before becoming indicted; they left Denmark after being acquitted and before the decision by the prosecution to appeal the acquittals. No court in Denmark has admitted the appeal by the prosecution and the above four persons are not "fugitives" from the law.

The Appeal Court verdict of 30 months (above) has come under severe criticism in a leading Danish legal journal for being extremely complicated and not easily accessible — from a factual as well as a legal point of view. The grounds of the Appeal Court verdict are labelled as "noteworthy" and for being "not an everyday occurrence" and "exceptional".

Media and controversies

Danish media and media in other countries have been extremely critical when reporting about "Tvind" for more than 30 years. There has been a consensus that everything "Tvind" was fair game for the media.

It was noted by a commentator in a leading Danish newspaper after the first verdict that one should hope the it would be a signal to end an unpleasant and in every aspect uncritical partner race between the prosecution and Danish media.

The leading prosecutor Poul Gade admitted after the acquittals that the prosecution from the outset did not have one single piece of evidence to get Mogens Amdi Petersen convicted. "That is why we chose to put forward a long row of circumstantial evidence which taken as a whole should prove Mogens Amdi Petersen guilty of embezzlement and tax evasion," said prosecutor Poul Gade to Denmarks Radio after the acquittals. (Translated from Danish.)

A Danish lawyer with an intimate knowledge of the basis for the above special act compared in statements to a newspaper and on live TV Danish minister of education Ole Vig Jensen with Joseph Goebbels stating both ministers used lies systematically to fight political opponents. "Send a bouquet of flowers to Dr. Goebbels. He would enjoy what is happening now", said the lawyer and added on live TV: "Exchange the concept Tvind teachers for the word Jews, and this is precisely what we are talking about." (Translated from Danish.) The minister of education ordered a trial brought against the lawyer. The Regional Court of Appeal allowed in its judgement the statements of the lawyer in the circumstances and ordered the minister of education to pay costs.

Former teachers and students

An estimated 40,000 children, youth and adults have until 1996 attended the Tvind schools since the first school was established in 1970. Thousands of students have attended since. A Google search for "Tvind 40,000 students" produced 3,750 hits, but the exact figure remains unknown. One of the first students wrote 25 years later: "Many thousands of young and adults have been students at the Tvind Schools. Some of them couldn't stand it or accept the spirit and they have quite naturally criticised Tvind. By far the greatest number got something very valuable with them for their life. They went out and recommended Tvind so warmly that the school cooperative grew bigger and bigger throughout those 25 years elapsed since I was with the first team of the Travelling Folk High School in 1971." (Translated from Danish.)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tvind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/63PaLg8L5?url=http://www.denverbbb.com/files/public/2005_0708_July-August_Better_Business.pdf to http://www.denverbbb.com/files/public/2005_0708_July-August_Better_Business.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217172617/http://www.tvind.dk/TextPage.asp?MenuItemID=55&SubMenuItemID=165 to http://www.tvind.dk/TextPage.asp?MenuItemID=55&SubMenuItemID=165

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)