Talk:Erhard Seminars Training/Archive 2

Pressman as source
The Pressman book Outrageous Betrayal is an unworthy source according to [WP:V] "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight." It is written as a novel and has no sourcing whatsoever. --Ftord1960 01:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It has extensive sourcing and you know that. It is not written like a novel. It is written like a biography. Jesus you LE people can't stop lying. The book doesn't have what you claim it has or doesn't have. Give up the racket Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 11:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia Verifiability policy does not discuss the concept of an "unworthy source". On the contrary, verifiabilty involves the ability to check publication in a  reliable source --one exactly like Pressman's well-researched study. -- The claim that Outrageous Betrayal: the Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile may have occasional novel-like features does not invalidate it as a reliable source, but merely gives it liveliness as a documentary record.


 * Note too that in 1997, Landmark Education, a party with a minor interest in the facts and itself a bit-player in Pressman's work, signed a legal agreement with the bankruptcy trustee of the old Cult Awareness Network which referred to Pressman's work as a "biography" and as a "book":

h. CAN also understands that Landmark would prefer that CAN not sell at all copies of a biography of Werner Hans Erhard by Steven Pressman entitle Outrageous Betrayal (St Martin's Press 1993)(the "Pressman Book"). CAN has not previously considered whether, after its emergence from bankruptcy, CAN would consider it appropriate to sell copies of the Pressman Book at all, for any purpose. In the interests of settling a dispute and in deference to Landmark's preference, however, CAN now agrees not to sell the Pressman Book for at least five years after CAN emerges from bankruptcy.
 * -- from "Page 10 of 10" of "Landmark Settlement Agreement" with the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), revised 30 October 1997, signed 3 November 1997. Image of document available online as part of the "Landmark Education Litigation Archive" at http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark132.pdf -- retrieved 2007-10-02. -- Not a word about a "novel" there -- just deadly-serious treatment of a an evidently effective biography.
 * -- Pedant17 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Erhard vs. IRS case
Just read the casefile again, as reffed, and I fail to see its relevance to anything other than fine detail of IRS law. I see an oblique relationship to Werner, and perhaps it should be a 'see also' or some such there. But I fail to see any relevance to est. Can you enlighten me? Ratagonia 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is formatted as another relevant reference. The case deals with Werner's earnings, and as such his ventures are relevant.  Smee 05:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
 * But.. read it. There's almost nothing there.  Again, possibly relevant to the Werner Erhard page, but a hard case to make to this page, est.  Seems totally irrelevant to me.  Can someone else take a look at it and render an opinion. Ratagonia 01:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will shortly be adding some more material to show relevance, in conjunction with other legal histocial material... Smee 04:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
 * There is no reason for this case to be in this article. It doesn't refer to the organisation that the article is about and there isn't any purpose that I can see other than to deliberately give a negative impression.Barnham 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * More relevance will be seen very shortly as other public domain legal cases are added as well... Smee 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I do not see the relevance of the this section to this article, perhaps it should just be on the Werner Erhard Article, if even there at all.Ebay3 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the Ellen Erhard case. Anyone is welcome, or course, to reintroduce it with additional information that makes it relevant to Erhard Seminars Training Ratagonia 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

 * I have tagged this page as unbalanced, as the anti-est viewpoint dominates and the pro-est one is nearly totally absent. The few sections that do mention those with a positive view of est are written in highly negative POV. I'm unsure of the correct balance of pro/anti, but the pro side needs to be more prominently represented than it is currently. Viciouslies 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The front part of the article seems to be loaded with references to Steve Pressmans' Book "Outrageous Betrayal". This book definitely comes from the anti-est viewpoint. Given it is cited 8 times at the begining of the article I am inclined to agree with viouslies.  Is there an alternative book reference available? Ebay3 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The book is a highly reputable, secondary source. The only other mainly autobiographical works were POV in the other direction...  But for additional sources, you might want to check this Google Books search.  Smee 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
 * How about being NPOV for the article with factual information and sources that are not just one person's point of view or editorial. FreedomByDesign 02:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An excellent goal in every article. The problem is that not everyone sees the bias and some see it and ignore it. And, not everyone is open to suggestions or criticism. The challenge is finding a way to show them why something is biased, in a way that is acceptable to them. Lsi john 03:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Navigational box

 * The navigational box is at the very bottom of the article, and is therefore unobtrusive. It pulls highly correlated articles together for the reader's interest, and for ease of navigation for editors.  Smee 21:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
 * It is a very POV box as has been discussed by other editors (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:LandmarkForum) and doesn't add anything to the article.Barnham 21:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a very navigational tool. As you keep reverting this, I will set up a request for comment.  Smee 21:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

Request for comment - Navigational box at bottom of article

 * Talk:Erhard Seminars Training -- Whether or not to include navigational box to related articles LandmarkForum, at the bottom of the article Erhard Seminars Training. 21:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

Previously involved editors
Smee 21:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment by Smee
 * 1) Previous discussion took place at Template talk:LandmarkForum, and many of the suggestions of User:Jossi and User:AJackl were voluntarily implemented by myself.
 * 2) The navigational box is at the bottom of the article, therefore it is unobstructive to the article itself.
 * 3) It is useful to the reader as a navigational tool, seeking more information on related articles.
 * 4) It is useful to the editor as a navigational tool, seeking information/sources/material on a related theme.
 * 5) It is NPOV, because all that is included in the box are the names of the other articles, presented in a neutral manner.
 * Comment by Ratagonia
 * Appropriate to have the Landmark box on this article. Ratagonia 01:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Further looking at the two Landmark templates leads me to conclude that neither template is mature enough to be attached to articles yet.  There is a HUGE problem with entangling est/Landmark/WEA/Werner, etc. on the wiki, that I hope we are all working on, and AFTER that, a template the includes some or all of it might be appropriate.  But, would be hard, given Landmark's desire to distinguish itself from WEA and est. Given this is an article about a living company, the desire of Landmark to maintain separation should be given considerable weight.  Thus, my comment is INAPPROPRIATE to include this Template at this time. Ratagonia 02:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by Ebay3
 * This is a historical article. I don't think the box is needed. I tend to agree with ratagonia and besides, there are enough references to the Landmark Forum else where in the article.  Those are my thoughts Ebay3 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by FreedomByDesign
 * There are inconsistencies in naming and it is not clear what value this box adds beyond what is already in the article. FreedomByDesign 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by AJackl
 * I remain strongly opposed to this template as it mis characterizes relationships between organizations and is an inherently POV structure. It also adds little new information to the article. It should be deleted. This is all on top of that almost all the links point to events and organization that did not even exist in the same time as the est Training. I believe the movie "Semi-Tough" mentioned is the ONLY event or organization that existed at the same time as est.  It gets really ridiculous when you think of it that way.  Alex Jackl 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Barnham
 * I am still opposed to this template. It is decidedly POV, it is redundant information and can be found in many other places both in this article and on wikipedia.  It's about a different article that there is already a link to, and doesn't summarize what is in this article.
 * I am removing the template based on 5 editors opposed to it and 2 for it.

Previously uninvolved editors
While templates can indeed be very useful pointers to related topics, the fact that they are only headings and links means that we have to be very careful about what they say, so that they don't subtly push biased assumptions. The article text should have clearly worded, appropriately prominent, unbiased descriptions of the companies and why people think they might be more or less related. (I'm not sure if they do or not; honestly, I don't really understand the nature of the disagreement regarding the companies.) I just feel that if a template is a matter of debate, it's probably not ready for use yet. Since there's significant disagreement about bias, and there's not room in a template to explain the disagreement, my vote is that it should NOT be displayed until it's sufficiently non-controversial that we don't need to argue about it. Instead, make sure the reader can find links to the related articles in the article, and that they understand the nature of those links if it's complicated or under debate. Lunkwill 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncategorized editors

 * Comment by Pedant17:
 * The "LandmarkForum" navigational box provides a useful summary of links in unraveling the connections and information in this whole arena. I would suggest re-naming it to something like "Werneristics" or "Erhardism". -- We can expect the box to develop and mature: we could add many further "see also" or "compare and contrast" links and categories that would enrich the encyclopedia. Lack of alleged "maturity" should not preclude pioneering on Wikipedia. -- One article worth setting up (and including in the navigational box) might address the very question as to the links or lack of links between Erhard/est and Landmark Education. This could concentrate on the known links and analyze the reasons for Landmark Education's apparent desire to suppress the connection -- separately from the sacred "Landmark Education" article (with its hide-bound kowtowing to contemporary commercialism), but firmly linked to it. It would also provide an account of the question "whatever happened to est" -- a valid and intriguing supplement to discussion of Erhard Seminars Training. -- Pedant17 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All very good points, Pedant17. By creating a new article, you are correct that we could try to avoid the WP:OWN that goes on with the "sacred" as you put it, Landmark Education article.  I am sure there are many sourced citations from reputable secondary sources to build an article on this.  What would the title of the article be?  Smee 06:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
 * You should reread the Landmark Education article and the conversations on there. There is no mission to separate Landmark from Werner Erhardt and est.  It is just that some people are obsessed with Werner Erhardt- I don't know why.  The Landmark article is trying to stop from becoming itself the POV article you are describing above.  Creating non-notable articles on a topic in order to press a particular POV is against Wikipedia policy so... Alex Jackl 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course no mission exists with the aim of separating Landmark from est: that leaves "the apparent desire to suppress the connection". -- The analysis focusing on an obsession with Erhard/Rosenberg fails to address other peoples' interest in other matters. -- I like the mystical view of the sentient "Landmark article ... trying to stop from becoming itself the POV article..."! -- And setting up articles on notable topics falls very much within the ambit of Wikipedia. As Ratagonia expressed (above) the broader approach to this topic of apparent interest: "There is a HUGE problem with entangling est/Landmark/WEA/Werner, etc. on the wiki, that I hope we are all working on" -- Pedant17 04:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientology/est links
This material:

"New members of Scientology would often have to go through an "Est Repair Rundown" if they had previously participated in Erhard Seminars Training:

'Est Repair Rundown: an auditing action designed to repair the damage done to a person mentally and spiritually by the practice of est (Erhard Seminars Training).' est was an offbeat group which used destructive techniques and some people new to Scientology are found to have been previously involved with est. It is necessary to undo the harmful effects of est before such persons can make adequate progress in Scientology auditing. [22]

The Scientology Missions International website also describes the "EST [sic] Repair Rundown," and encourages Scientologists to go through the Rundown procedure even if they had participated in an "offshoot" of Erhard Seminars Training:

If you attended Erhard Seminar Training (EST) or Forum (one of its off-shoots), this rundown can repair any damage done by this off-beat activity. EST practices contained just enough truth, “borrowed” from Scientology processes, to get a case into restimulation — and then left it in that state without any means to repair it. This rundown undoes the damage and removes any stops so you can get everything Scientology has to offer. [23]"

seems really odd in this article. 1. they seem to be about Scientology, rather than about est. 2. they use Scientology publications, which are not WP:RS, being self-published.

I suggest we remove them. If someone wanted to put them in the Scientology article, that would make sense, but they make little to no sense here. Comments? Ratagonia 06:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the quoted material addresses alleged consequences of and implies views on est, it has relevance to the article on 'Erhard Seminars Training". Scientological publications, even self-published ones, have a certain degree of reliability in reporting the stated opinions and attitudes of the Church of Scientology: indeed, few publications could serve as a more reliable primary source. The article has identified Scientology's views (and their origin) as a relevant opinion on est. -- Pedant17 04:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the assertion of Ratagonia. I think that is is odd in this article.  This is more relevant to a scientology article. I suggest that it be removed.Ebay3 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Finding something odd does not of itself make that something a candidate for deletion. The quoted material has at least as much relevance to est as it has to Scientology -- though it conveys information about both. If the material were to migrate to some Scientology article (with, of course, a link from the Erhard Seminars Training article), which Scientology article would provide the most appropriate environment for it? Would Wikipedia profit from an article on "Scientology/est interconnections" (with, of course, a link from the Erhard Seminars Training article) ? -- Pedant17 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of reducing this long passage, which tells the reader more about Scientology than est, to something like "The Scientology Missions International website encourages Scientologists who participated in est to go through an EST Repair Rundown, which removes any stops created by est". But, really, my opinion is that this information is interesting but not particularly relevant to an article about est. I'm not against leaving it if its trimmed to one sentence, but I don't think it belongs in this article. Roccoconon 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We have nothing to fear from long passages which provide well-documented factual material presented from different sources. If it seems too wordy, we can break it up with sub-headings or hide some of the supporting material in footnotes. -- We have nothing to fear from telling readers with an interest in est about its well-known interconnections with Scientology. The particular facts concerning the "Est Repair Rundown" do indeed reveal something about Scientological practices, but they imply much about he  nature and perceived efficacy of est, and that deserves highlighting in any substantial article on Erhard Seminars Training. Their relevance to an article on est leaps out from the very title of the "Est Repair Rundown". -- If this passage does not belong in this article, what existing or new linked article would do the matter justice? -- Pedant17 04:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening Statement
The opening statement of an article should not lead the reader to any desired conclusions. The label LGAT is not relevant to a generic description of Erhard Seminars. It lends no value to the opening statement.


 * On the contrary, the "LGAT" description extends and refines the definition of est. So long as nobody claims that est "was" [just] a seminar-program or est "is'/"was" [just] an LGAT, the more precise (and potentially conflicting) labels the better -- especially in the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph tends to play a particular role in setting the NPOV tone of an article, and this make various and definite labels desirable. -- Pedant17 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Erhard Seminars did not claim to be LGAT and it was only later that the term was applied to them. If it is relevant to the article then it should be included within the article in a paragraph which explains how the LGAT label was applied and by whom.

The Book of Genesis did not claim to form part of the Bible -- only later did it become part of various collections of scriptural writings and terms like "Bible" came to apply to them. The self-definition of est provides only one approach to treating the subject of est encyclopedically. -- Pedant17 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In the same way we do not cite how many 1000's of people Erhard helped, in order to paint a 'good' bias on Erhard, we also do not add a pejorative LGAT label here either.


 * The term "LGAT" or "Large Group Awareness Training", though it may appear pejorative in some usages, does not intrinsically smear or deride: rather it offers a descriptive generic term to deal with the phenomenon -- originally in the academic literature. Just as we may indeed claim how many people Erhard helped (provided we have sufficient evidence to back the claim), so too we can call a social movement by an academic name (with, once again, appropriate evidence). -- Pedant17 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not belong in the opening statement Lsi john 17:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "LGAT" appears appropriate in the opening statement as a recognized, impartial, academic descriptor of est. -- Pedant17 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

and I have relocated it to a more relevant section of the article. Lsi john 17:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverts were made, offending text was re-included. The contributing editor ignored requests to participate in talk. Lsi john 15:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding sometimes controversial is WP:OR and WP:POV and is unsourced. I propose it be removed. Lsi john 00:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should substitute the tag "always controversial"? One could (with a little extra effort) make a reasoned and documented case for that wording as well... -- Pedant17 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

LGAT does not have a specific definition and thus a company cannot be LGAT. It can be said that the company has been called an LGAT or that it has been claimed that the company falls into an LGAT category. Making an outright claim in the article that a company IS LGAT is WP:OR and WP:POV. I propose that such verbiage be removed or reworded appropriately. Lsi john 00:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Any use of "be" or "is" can definitely appear suspect: I thoroughly endorse alternate wordings (such as "X has called est an LGAT" or "Y coined the description 'LGAT' to use in discussing est". Viva E-Prime! -- especially in encyclopedias! -- Pedant17 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose a compromise on the lead-ins for companies in this LGAT series.
 * I am in agreement with user: Lsi john that the "sometimes controversial" should be removed. COntroversies are handled later in the article and having it in the opening statement leads to a POV reading.--Saladdays 16:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, open acknowledgment of a controversy up-front makes the neutral stance of an article immediately apparent and complies directly with the requirement to express the  Neutral point of view. -- Pedant17 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * proposed compromise

In various articles, we are currently using LGAT both as a methodology and a organization. I believe that we are mis-using the term LGAT when we say that a company is LGAT.

By definition, the term LGAT it is a methodology, not an organization. Technically, the companies cannot be LGAT. Technically, they employ or utilize LGAT techniques or methodologies.

In this article, the current text is fairly close to correct usage:
 * "'Erhard Seminars Training or est (generally in lower-case letters), a sometimes controversial large group awareness training (LGAT) seminar-program, became popular during the 1970'"

In contrast with other articles, where we improperly claim that a company is LGAT:
 * "'Lifespring was a New Age/human potential training LGAT which operated from 1974 until the mid 1990s.'"

These companies are really seminar training companies (or programs) which use LGAT techniques or methodologies. As a compromise, (across the board for most/all? of the LGAT series, I propose something similar to this:
 * "ABC was a (controversial) personal growth seminar training company which is/was proported to utilize LGAT methodologies.[1]"

In the cases where controversial applies, it could be inserted.

By using this terminology, it gives an unbiased and equal opportunity to both perspectives: Personal Growth, which was applied by the company and describes what the training was supposed to be doing; and the LGAT label, which was applied by others later, and describes the methodology.

Please consider the value in this proposed compromise.

Thank you. Lsi john 12:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I endorse the suggestion that words such as "purportedly utilized LGAT techniques and/or methodologies" may enhance the neutral point-of-view. But I object to any use of "is" or "was" in any encyclopedic context: such usage tends to narrow and confine the topic by inherently excluding other interpretations. -- Pedant17 04:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No Friendship with L.Ron Hubbard
I have removed the statement the Werner Erhard and L. Ron Hubbard were friends. The source cited had two problems. 1) It was linked to an internal wikipedia article, which is not a valid reference. 2) In googling the cited article I found the full text of this article: http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/mom/Messiah_or_Madman.txt. There is no mention at all of them being friends.--Saladdays 16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement in Reference
It's clear that the quote from ''Getting saved from the sixties: moral meaning in conversion and cultural change by Steven Tipton is copied verbatim, but it appears the original author is wrong in one detail. The book The Power of Positive Thinking'' is not Dale Carnege's, but Norman Vincent Peale's. What is the proper way to correct this citation--amend it with [sic]? Annotate it in the footnote? --Free-world 23:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Using "[sic]" sounds good to me. -- Pedant17 04:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

metamorphosed
Smee, in my opinion, this is not a good choice of wording.
 * "1 a : to change into a different physical form especially by supernatural means"

An encyclopedia article should be neutral. Even if the author used that exact phrasing, it is not mandatory that we quote him verbatim. By using such terminology, we are writing the article from that author's perspective and thus writing an unbalanced article. The accurate word is reorganized. The biased and prejudicial word is metamorphosed. The company did not change by some supernatural means. To suggest they did, is clearly sarcastic and prejudicial.

We are at choice here. We can make sure we write neutral articles, or we can include the colorful verbiage used by some authors, in order to emphasize their underlying meaning.

I vote for neutral, can I count on your support?

Lsi john 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Metamorphosed" may indeed imply the employment of supernatural means, but not necessarily so: the quoted apparent dictionary-definition uses the qualifier "especially" rather than (for example) "exclusively" or the (default) null qualifier. And dictionaries that go past definition 1a may have even less to say about things supernatural (the Oxford English Dictionary, for example). Nor would even a hint of "supernatural means" necessarily make the phrase sarcastic and prejudicial -- merely colorful. -- To state that a company became "reorganized" may imply no change in ownership, which does not apply here. -- If (and I stress the "if") "colorful" language (rather than mere "verbiage") does sometimes carry implications of "biased and prejudicial" overtones, we can supplement it with synonyms and pad it with paraphrases in order to redress any perceived lack of NPOV, rather than distorting the meaning with mere bland interpolated "accuracy". -- Pedant17 04:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

copyedit 4-25
Hey Smee, not sure why you restored a series of spelling corrections and minor factual corrections, but please don't. I reverted. If you have a beef with a specific change, let's discuss it here. Ratagonia 13:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing Extraneous Information
The article is 54 kilobytes long, nearly double the 32KB guideline WP:LENGTH. At the same time, there is a lot of information in the article only indirectly relevant to Erhard Seminars Training that has been copied from the Werner Erhard article. I propose removing this extraneous information since it is DIRECTLY relevant to Erhard Seminar Training's founder, not the organization itself and is mentioned in the article about Erhard. Specifically, I propose the following changes: Comments?Roccoconon 19:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Influences: consolidate these paragraphs into one or two.
 * Scientology section: trim first quote and explain succinctly Pressman's assertion that Erhard participated in and was influenced by Scientology.
 * Scientology: Delete all mention of Jentzch's, Rosenberg's, and Erhard's appearances on Larry King Live which deal with Erhard personally and are in the Werner Erhard article.
 * Scientology: Consolidate the two mentions of an "est Repair Rundown" into one section, or delete this altogether since the section purportedly deals with influences on est, not a discussion of the relationship between est and Scientology.
 * Timeline: trim the timeline to end when WEA is founded, and thus, Erhard Seminars Training ended. Provide a link to the WEA article, which picks up where this article leaves off.
 * Taxation: Remove this entire section since the charges were against Erhard personally, not the organization (the structure of Erhard Seminar Training's finances by Harry Margolis is dealth with elsewhere in the "Finances" section)
 * InfoBox: shorten the list of "Key People", which has turned into an exhaustive list of everyone ever associated with the organization instead of the "key" people involved. If someone is trying to show that people involved with Landmark Education currently were also involved with est, I suggest that their individual articles is a better place to mention past employment.

I concur. I also believe that some of the External Links do not conform to the guidelines WP:EL and I have addressed some of them (above). They should be removed. Lsi john 19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with making the changes proposed by Roccoconon. Let's simplify this, so that people reading it get accurate and concise information. I also agree with LsiJohn on the external links.--Barnham 20:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Long overdue. Ratagonia 20:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Smee has reverted edits, without regard to this discussion. I have placed a please stop notice on her talk page. Lsi john 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been 5 days and there have been no objections, so I am going to edit boldly WP:BOLD and make the changes mentioned above. Roccoconon 21:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Brevity and simplicity may come at the expense of context and thoroughness. The timeline in particular has a valuable role in bridging and continuity: for example in the period when WE&A marketed the est training. -- Pedant17 04:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Structuring the Article: est vs. Erhard Seminars Training
Looking at the table of contents for this article, I think we can also improve it by structuring the information better. One thing to do would be to separate information about the "est Training" from information about "Erhard Seminars Training", the organization that offered the est Training. I'll start making those edits. Feel free to comment. Roccoconon 20:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Entries Under Controversy
Would someone please explain what is being said in the Controversy section (quoted below):

Other participants had breakdowns. Researchers have reported a number of cases of psychotic reaction among those enrolled according to a study by M. A. Kirsch and L. L. Glass in 1977 cited in Marc Galanter Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion, Oxford University Press, 1989, page 207 (ISBN 0-19-512369-7).

Marc Galanter, M.D., formerly of the World Health Organization, writes in his statistical study Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion:

After an initial correspondence with Werner Erhard, I met at some length with the movement's director of research so that we might consider studying this transformation. Our discussions of getting it, however, yielded no operational definition. [30]

Eileen Barker wrote of the ambiguous status of est, speaking of

... movements which do not fall under the definition of religion used by the Institute [for the study of American Religion], but which are sometimes called 'cults.' Examples would be est, Primal Therapy or Rebirthing. [31]

The grammar and punctuation in the second sentence render the sentence unreadable to me. I also do not understand what is controversial about the two quotes given. Unless someone can explain this, I think the text quoted above should be moved/deleted. Roccoconon 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Try: "Researchers have reported a number of cases of psychotic reaction among those enrolled, according to a 1977 report by M. A. Kirsch and L. L. Glass cited in Marc Galanter Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion, Oxford University Press, 1989, page 207 (ISBN 0-19-512369-7)." -- And by all means move quotes to more appropriate locales. -- Pedant17 04:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Tipton "Study"
The Tipton book is listed under academic studies, but it is just a book by an author that happens to be a prof at Emory. it should be under a different heading. Any suggestions? Ratagonia 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In what respect do you regard Tipton's thorough and scholarly research, laden with footnotes, bristling with bibliographic categories, and published by a university press, as not "academic"? -- Pedant17 04:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lack of Peer Review and publication in a journal. It is a scholarly book.  Well footnoted, etc.  But it is not an 'Academic Study'.  Ratagonia 07:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could make a "distinction" between "academic study" and "Academic Study". Or just use a heading such as "Scholarly works" to cover both perceived categories. -- Pedant17 01:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with Tipton's work, however a "book" is different than a "study". I think the distinction would be between "academic study" and "academic book", or even "well-researched book".


 * Tipton carried out three "studies" -- long-term field-work research investigations -- and wrote up the three in a single book. The section on est comprises a major chapter and a significant portion of the book. Thus we have a study on a study within a book. -- Pedant17 04:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Eisner
Hi. I have a ref by Eisner (2000) the Death of Psychology, that places EST as an LGAT. I think its relevant. I'll post the key ideas here when I've got my act together. Jeffrire 09:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeffrire, may I ask what the fascination is with tying LGAT to all the companies? If LGAT is the innocuous label that it is being portrayed to be, why is so much energy seemingly being spent trying to uncover references which tag the companies as LGAT?


 * To me, whether it is LGAT, or Personal Growth, or personal awareness shouldn't make that much difference. Unless there is some specific underlying meaning or importance to using LGAT?


 * I am open to the notion that I have missed something here and would appreciate your views.


 * Thank you for your time.
 * Lsi john 17:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in cultic studies. So of course I'll be coming across the LGAT phrase quite often. I can add it to the appropriate places using the right references. I'll not add it to anything inappropriate (such as anything that isn't associated with lgats). Why do you not want it mentioned? Jeffrire 04:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeffrire, I wish we could speak in person so that you could hear my words and see that I am not intending to be confrontational or challenging here. I believe you are interpreting my questions as challenges against your inclusion. To be very clear here, I have not even looked at the source. I have no opinion about it. I'm asking you to help me form one. I am trying to remain neutral.
 * Please take a second and suppose that I am someone who 100% totally and completely agrees with your position on everything, and read my questions from that perspective.
 * When I ask you to tell me what value it brings, please do not mentally add that as it brings no value Because that is not what I am saying. If I thought it brought no value, I would say so.
 * One of your fellow contributors has challenged the addition. I was acting from the perspective of the host of a formal debate, and asking you to explain why you felt it brought enough value to be included in the article.
 * If you had challenged someone else's link, I would ask exactly the same questions of them. I assume you believe it brings value, or you wouldn't have added it, I also assume that the other contributor doesn't see its value, or he wouldn't have questioned it. From that position, it seems a fair question to ask you to take a moment and explain in some detail, why you believe it brings significant value.
 * I keep using significant because that is a criteria for inclusion in any article. If there are 100 references that say the sky is blue. Adding a reference that says the sky is powder blue may (or not) be significant but adding a reliable reference study with supporting documentation that claims that the sky is teal green would bring significant value and an oposing viewpoint.
 * Krator, in a similar (though not identical) discussion explained :
 * "The book may be notable within the context Large Group Awareness Trainings, but there is no need to mention it in the lead when it is not notable outside. If, for example, The Lord of the Rings had mentioned Large Group Awareness Trainings, that would've been notable enough to include in the lead."
 * I believe that similar standards apply for including things in an article. Specifically that additions should add significant value to an article and not violate overall neutrality by overly representing one side or the other in a highly controversial subject.
 * In this particular article, it is uncontested that Erhard Seminars has been classified as a group that uses LGAT. In which case, the bar gets raised to a slightly higher standard, for each new piece of information which supports that position.
 * I truly have no opinion on your link. I'm only ask you to explain why you believe it adds significant value to an existing article which is already near the maximum limit set by wiki standards.
 * Lsi john 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A vast potential spectrum of views on LGATness (as on other topics to do with est) may exist. Each might emphasize or de-emphasize LGATness in some respect. Any reference may add value. -- Suppose for the sake of example that an article consisted of a lead-paragraph (which we exclude from consideration as a special case) and one hundred sentences. Can we produce a formula prescribing the number of sentences allowed to mention LGATness before the balances of views get disrupted? -- Pedant17 04:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Complete removal of Scientology section
Among the many very large changes that User:Saladdays made to this article in a very short span of time was removing the entirety of the "Scientology" section, reinserting only a single sentence (from which he retained a reference marker but omitted the reference) about the relationship between Erhard and Scientology. His edit summary for this action was "section was about a separate organiziation and is way tooo much copy for something that has nothing to to with this subject".

Any examination of the material removed shows the claim that it has "nothing to do with this subject" to be definitely false. The Church of Scientology has a "rundown" specifically for est by name. The Church of Scientology is hostile to a great many "other practices" but this is the only case I am aware of where it has offered a technique particular to one other group. How can anyone say it has nothing to do with Erhard Seminars Training that they have received this level of attention that seems not to have been equalled before or since?

I am accordingly restoring the section. Its removal was so drastic and upon examination, so incorrect, that I think it calls for similar examination of all the other removals made by Saladdays in the same period. The timestamps indicate that these removals were all performed within a period of about 21 minutes; I would recommend in future that a bit more time be taken with editing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Antaeus. I'll keep an eye out for any other large changes here in future. I also may have some more information to add to this section or related. Jeffrire 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. I support the removal of the extraneous Scientology material.  Scientology deserves a mention in the influences section, as Erhard's dalliance in Scientology was important to the development of est (see Bartley).  The other material (est rundown, etc.) does not deserve a place in this article because: 1. this article is about est, not Scientology; 2. Comments on est by significant people or organizations CAN be appropriate, but Scientology is a very, very minor viewpoint, and therefore it's comments on est CANNOT be appropriate to an encyclopedic article; and 3. all materials are self-published by the Church of Scientology and therefore do not meet the Reliable Source requirements. Ratagonia 08:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ratagonia: I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am curious how you reach that conclusion? I have seen many self-published works in wiki articles. When I have disputed them, I am told that some things can be self-published and still be Reliable Source. Why do you feel this situation is different? Lsi john 12:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three factors listed above. To state more fully: 1. Inappropriate for this article: In this example, the material is not actually about est, it is about a Scientology process related to est.  Substitute Catholic Church for est - if the Church of Scientology had a process for Catholics to clear their guilt, mention of this process would not be appropriate under the Catholic Church article, but it might be appropriate under the Church of Scientology article.  (I think this is the strongest argument for deleting this material).  2. Notability: While the Church of Scientology has strong feelings about est, the Church of Scientology is a small-minority viewpoint, and therefore should not be given much weight in the Wiki article.  If the American Psychological Association had something to say, or for that matter the Catholic Church, then those statements might be appropriate to the article.  3. Reliable Sourcing: On matters of Scientology, the church website may be the only available source, and would be a Reliable Source on many issues.  Self-published material must be used very carefully on the Wiki, especially when used as a secondary (rather than primary) source.  For instance, the Catholic Church is a good PRIMARY source for Catholic Church doctrine, but would be a suspect SECONDARY source for Islamic doctrine.  Conclusion: overall, for inclusion in the Wiki, the material should pass ALL THREE PARTS of this test - it should be Relevant, Noteable, AND Reliably Sourced.  I claim that it fails all three tests, though I conceed the case can be made that the Church of Scientology self-published material can be used on the Wiki. Ratagonia 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ratagonia, I agree with you that the Church of Scientology is not a reliable source about the actual character or nature of Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training, or anything related. However, that is not why I think we should include this material.  I think it should be included in this case because the past and present relationship between EST and Scientology (Erhard's own progress through Scientology; Scientology's declaring him a Suppressive Person; Erhard's claims that Scientology is responsible for the majority of his and EST's bad press; Scientology's decreeing that EST is such a damaging practice that it actually merits a 'repair' technique just to deal with 'damage' from this one source -- which as I have said before, is to my knowledge unprecedented) is significant enough to deserve discussion in any truly complete article on EST.  To use your own example -- the Catholic Church is a secondary source that must be used very, very carefully, if at all, on Islamic doctrine.  However, if we are discussing the Crusades, what the Catholic Church at the time believed about Islamic doctrine is definitely relevant.
 * With that being said, I think the section can be condensed to a great extent from what it is now, and that condensation would be an improvement of the article. Of all the blockquotes, the only one that I would think we might have a reason to keep as a blockquote would be one of the two blockquotes about the "Est Repair Rundown".  Even that one, I'm not saying should be kept as a blockquote; I'm saying that's the only one I wouldn't convert into an inline expression of the salient points. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Going only from the conversation here, it appears that you are both saying the same thing (sort of):
 * "'While the Church of Scientology has strong feelings about est, the Church of Scientology is a small-minority viewpoint, and therefore should not be given much weight in the Wiki article'-Ratagonia"
 * "'With that being said, I think the section can be condensed to a great extent from what it is now'-Antaeus Feldspar"
 * It sounds like the Church found est significant enough to address, that would bear (appropriate) mention in this article. So now that you both seem to agree on that, rather than delete it completely, find a appropriately condensed snippet which mentions the Church's reference and then moves on to more relevant material. Lsi john 00:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What Happened Next, in the lead
AFTER Erhard Seminars Training, there was WEA. This article has a reasonable couple of lines about going to WEA, then selling the IP to Landmark. For the lead, I think just the sentance about reorganizing in 1981 into WEA is sufficient. (Stating that Landmark Forum 'bought' WEA is not technically accurate. They bought the IP.  A fine distinction, perhaps, but the Wiki makes these fine distinctions). Ratagonia 15:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Readers interested in est may have an interest in learning that the core of est did not die, but lives on in other forms even unto this day. -- Everyone appears to agree that the company that became Landmark Education bought the "intellectual property" of WE&A.  No sale of "technology" took place, did it? Who sold the customer database to whom? Who transferred the physical assets to whom? Who inherited the employment contracts from whom? Who passed the assisting agreements to whom? In summarizing the survival of the ideas and practices of est, historically, one might do well to reference and examine the ideas and practices of each of its offspring. -- Pedant17 04:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and the lead as now constituted makes that clear. Quote: Erhard Seminars Training reorganized into "Werner Erhard and Associates" (WE&A) in 1981. The intellectual property from WE&A was bought by Landmark Education in 1991. In the estian way of speaking, the 'technology' is the Intellectual Property. Buying the assets of the company and buying the company are two different things.  That perhaps little changed when WE&A 'transformed' into Landmark Education is not an indication of something amiss.  Your questions are perhaps interesting, but answering them constitutes original research, unless you can perhaps find a RS that has already done that research.  I'm not sure what your point is??? The lead as currently constituted, and the expansion in the text, seems accurate and appropriate. Ratagonia 07:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we need to be careful with meanings here. From what I've read, the view is that EST became Landmark etc, rather than EST giving birth to Landmark etc. Basically we can present it as its viewed in quotes. Jeffrire 11:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If indeed estian "technology" equates exactly or approximately to "intellectual property" we would need to explain any such jargony usage. -- One could regard the questions about the sale/transfer of other things as rhetorical. But the fact that we can ask them suggests that merely discussing intellectual property does not give the full story. -- Pedant17 01:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Template headers in discussion
Adding a Scientology template here, to reflect that Scientologists have edited here, is an interesting concept. If we do that, then we also need to include, Pilots, Muscians, Scientists, Mathmaticians, Chemists, Engineers, Programmers............ and suddenly it seems absurd... nuff said. Lsi john 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The template only means that users from the WikiProject are working on the article. Stop removing the template.  Thanks.  Smee 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm a Unitarian, a mountaineer and a clarinet player. Since I am working on this article, I will add those project templates in here, also.  (Well, actually, I won't, but I think you get the point, although it is also pretty silly to have an ongoing argument about a wikiproject banner on the Talk page). Ratagonia 23:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote Farm
Jeffrire, while I applaud your enthusiasm, we are supposed to be moving 'away' from quotefarm, not toward it. The purpose of encyclopedia articles is to 'accurately summarize' primary and secondary sources into a well-written article. Specifically there are guidelines for what wikipedia is not. As a new editor, you might consider reading WP:NOT for some helpful hints.

Thanks. Peace in God. Lsi john 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I could have done as you did and added my own twist to the statement, including adding an inappropriate tense to the line. But I didn't. Supplying a quote and reducing the length of the line makes it more accurate and more concise. Jeffrire 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I twisted it to be an accurate citation from the material. I'm awful that way. Perhaps you could move past your rhetoric and reduce the quotes in the article? Lsi john 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The WP:NOT policy addresses "[l]ists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations..." and thus does not apply to articles which integrate quotations into the flow of their text and thus support reliable sourcing. We often need more quotes, not fewer, to establish verifiable accuracy. New editors as well as older hands could usefully insert/restore quotations and embed them in an NPOV context -- Pedant17 01:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Quotefarm is not about WP:NOT. It is about WP:FACR 1a - an article full of quotes is badly written and not good prose. Sometimes it is hard to believe we're here to write good articles, but it is actually true. --User:Krator (t c) 11:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the encouragement towards featured article status Krator. The main point here though was not to remove the quote but to clearly represent it. I simply made sure the quote was accurately and simply represented without any undue commentary attached. The quotefarm objection seems to be Lsi john's way of objecting to the simple attribution I used to reduce his longwinded sentence written in past tense . I would like for all quotes to be simplified into brief sentence form as long as it doesn't require endless conflict on how to represent the information. I think quotes can be a harmonious temporary way to go, albeit not the ultimate ideal. Jeffrire 14:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Featured article criteria discussion referenced as WP:FACR does not even directly mention quotes, let alone quote-farming. An article featuring quotes can have good style and above all, accuracy in conveying the tone and content of its cited sources, thereby precluding much misunderstanding and potentially heading off edit-warring. I suggest we restore the numerous useful quotes, even if only as footnotes to summaries of their import. -- Pedant17 04:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Nosing around in this area has made me wonder for quite some time now how to pronounce the abbreviation "est". Is it pronounced E-S-T or rather "est" as in the Latin "He/She/it is"? --User:Krator (t c) 23:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The latter is correct. Smee 11:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Quotes removed
Someone has removed almost all of the cited material due to WP:COPY.

I agree with the removal, on those grounds, but I also believe the material should be included.

We need to go through all those citations and re-word them to avoid WP:COPY violations.

Lsi john 23:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:COPY
Please stop inserting references which violate WP:COPY.

If you do not understand the policy, please read it. If you continue to add WP:COPY violations, you can be blocked for disruption.

Thank you.

Lsi john 04:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Copy" violations refer to text directly in the article. Read the disclaimer at Ross's site.  It is a nonproft, and the articles are duly archived as an educational resource.  Smee 04:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
 * In other words, yes, it would be a COPY violation if we copied entire texts from the articles into Wikipedia. But it is not, so simply provide an external link to a nonproft educational archive.  Smee 04:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
 * It is a violation of WP:COPY to link to a page which has a) has copyright violation material. b) has links to copyright violation material.
 * RickRoss links to numerous copyright violation material on his website. His policy is to violate copyright until someone makes him remove it. That is unacceptable and is not how copyright works. Your reference is to a link-page which includes numerous links to copyright violation material. It is unacceptable. Lsi john 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not add this back in again. But your removal is inappropriate, as the material is hosted by a nonprofit site for archival educational purposes.  It would be a blockable violation if the information itself was copied into the article, but not simply as an external link to a nonprofit educational site.  Smee 04:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Copyright is not something you can just pretend doesn't exist when it's convenient. You must obtain permission for reprints and copies. RickRoss clearly does not do that and his disclaimer clearly insists that any copyright owners must object first. That is not how copyright works. Lsi john 05:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The site is duly a nonprofit and an educational archive, and as such makes proper use of the material, but that is not the point, the point is that the policy to discuss here would be WP:EL, and not WP:COPY, as we are not using copyrighted material in the article itself. Smee 05:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC).


 * The brief extracts of material typically incorporated into Wikipedia articles such as Erhard Seminars Training come into the category of fair use and we may need to label them as such. (Pedant17 04:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Image (and case) highly notable

 * Hrm, let's see. Erhard/WEA/EST appealed to Court of Appeals, and lost.  Appealed to Supreme Court of the United States, they refused to hear his petition.  The case itself explains the "circuitous" (not my word, but Appellate Judge) money transactions of ALL of his various business dealings at the time.  The case itself is cited even to this day by the United States Tax Court as precedent in many, many other cases.  This is notable and highly relevant.  Others seem to think that this PUBLIC DOMAIN image has no place in any article on the project.  This is most amusing.  Smee Smee 20:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC).


 * Isn't Smee the editor who recently complained about posting the exact same comment in multiple places? I seem to recall that, anyway. But I digress... if this one single morsel of a tax image is so vitally important and significant to all these articles, I suggest we combine the articles into one, instead of fluffing them with common facts between them all. Lsi john 20:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A group portrait of Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt from the Yalta Conference currently appears in the Wikipedia articles Yalta Conference, Joseph Stalin and Franklin D. Roosevelt, but not in the article Winston Churchill. According to the Lsi-john doctrine, we might want to combine the the articles on Yalta, Roosevelt and Stalin into a brisk 32-kilobyte article called (say) Early 20th-century events and people. But Churchill would still have his own article. -- Pedant17 04:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, your conversation in these discussions does not seem to be very polite. For someone who repeatedly requests polite talk, you seem to be quite full of acrid sarcasm. And what happened to your demand that nobody talk in CAPS? (oh my). But that's just my humble observation. Lsi john 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fortunately for spirited debate, "acrid sarcasm" has no necessary incompatibility with politeness. -- Pedant17 04:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted it in multiple talk pages, because the image was being removed outright from all three articles. And I put PUBLIC DOMAIN in caps, to emphasize that the image is a free-use image, and is in fact the only free-use image currently in the article, the others are fair use.  It is a highly notable case, appealed unsuccessfully from District Court, to Appellate Court, to Supreme Court, and a highly notable image.  Smee 20:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes, but you also used caps for ALL, which sorts puts the bugsplat on your side-step double-speak. But since you've already graciously apologized in another article, I'll assume you intend equal contrition here. Though, it was nice to see the real Smee, however briefly. Lsi john 21:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

- And, now, if you're interested in an honest and sincere opinion about your graphic, I really don't think it belongs here. Its a rather confusing and very specific detail about a very small piece of information. There is no significant section in this article for the tax case, because it simply wasn't that significant. As such, the graphic is misleading, which I presume (based on my experience of your editing) is what you intended. Remember, you're the one who is responsible for your edit-style. All we can do is judge by what you show us. Lsi john 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The public-domain graphic of income-flows belongs in the article on Erhard Seminars Training if only because it belongs in no better place, though we could certainly set it up in its own article with appropriate links. In the interim, it belongs in the article on Erhard Seminars Training -- despite any confusion it may cause. For every ten readers who espy a graphic and pass over it as "rather confusing", perhaps one reader may conceivably delight in this vivid demonstration of corporate complexity and international tax-evasion. As a very wide-ranging piece of information, linking est as it does with other entities, it brings significance in its own right -- though a discussion of its place in the development of  Margolis schemes and in the history of est would (of course) further enhance that significance. -- Pedant17 04:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Try to keep in mind Smee, there is a difference between related and relevant. The objection being raised is whether or not it is significant and relevant, not whether it is at all related. Lsi john 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Related" implies provable factuality; relevant tends more to a matter of human judgment. For every suggestion of irrelevance in Wikipedia, at least one counter-suggestion of relevance arises. Any editor adding material implicitly testifies to the relevance of that material. Any agitation for removal of material (rarely justified) needs very sound and logical support -- not mere fulmination about "significance". -- Pedant17 04:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are a very apt and adept gatherer of citations and sources. The problem you stumble over, is that you seem to believe that simply because a source is related in some way to the article, that it belongs in the article. And then you rather obnoxiously (sorry but thats how it seems) revert anyone who attempts to remove one of your sources, as if it will be the very death of the article. It's really something you might consider as constructive criticism. You'll get along so much better with other editors, if you start respecting them and assuming good faith on their part. Lsi john 21:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How can we build the web on the grand scale in good faith if nay-sayers consistently remove sources? -- The shrinkage in size of this article on Erhard Seminars Training logs indictments on opposition to the provision of information. Currently a mere 9024 bytes, it had over 50,000 bytes for much of May 2007.  -- Pedant17 04:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I will let others comment here. It will be interesting to see if other editors think the image should be included in the article, and the relevant subsection expanded upon from available sources.  Smee 22:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC).


 * The Erhard Seminars Training article currently lacks graphical material and could profitably grow from its truncated stub-status. If and only if we achieve a well-illustrated article with a clear prose-based summary of income-flow which betters the graphic need we consider removing it. -- Pedant17 04:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion
This article was tagged for deletion by user RandomHumanoid. I think that this is worth looking into. All of this information is well developed in the Werner Erhard article. It has been mentioned before that we ought to look at combining this article with that one. What are other editors thoughts? Saladdays 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this course and organization are not around any more and they seem to be covered elsewhere, I do think it should be considered for removal. FreedomByDesign 00:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the est course and the Erhard Seminars Training organization no longer exist in their canonical form, the scope for multiple encyclopedic articles on each increases greatly, as does the opportunity for historical research and analysis, untrammelled by petty considerations of offending current religious sensibilities or of falling foul of contemporary commercial considerations. -- Pedant17 04:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is a stub and needs to be completed. These controversial seminars represent important history as an arguably misguided precursor to modern Life coaching such as done by Tony Robbins, Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra etc. If, indeed, all the information were well developed in the Werner Erhard article (as claimed above), then yes, delete. But the Werner Erhard is a biography, and does not adequately inform the reader about EST. Verdict from this editor: keep, improve. Thank you... Gekritzl 02:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The "stub" appearance of the Erhard Seminars Training article right now testifies to the work of deletionist editors rather than to the lack of interest in the subject-matter. -- Pedant17 04:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article should be considered for deletion as well. What ever unique information that is in this article could be included in the other articles related to the subject. I guess that makes my vote: delete, merge. Ebay3 21:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you find a re-direct to Large Group Awareness Training appropriate? Or would a redirect to Exegesis serve better?  -- Pedant17 04:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In the case of deletion, What should become of the hundreds of links from other articles that link to this one? -- Pedant17 04:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I came here to find information on EST. I was somewhat stunned to see that an editor feels that an article that users will be looking for on an encyclopedia would be unencyclopedic. However, reading the comments above, the issue appears more to be about where to place the article, rather than to remove all comments on EST from Wiki. I will replace the delete tag with a merge one instead. SilkTork 15:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion
The merge with Large Group Awareness Training is not something I am advocating. I have changed the tag from a delete discussion to a merge discusion as that appears to be more appropriate. My own feelings on the matter are neutral. As long as readers can find information on EST, then it matters not if that information is stand alone or a section in a larger article - unless of course the EST material becomes so large that it warrants its own article. SilkTork 15:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a vote from involved and uninvolved editors? Ratagonia

Should Erhard Seminars Training be merged into Werner Erhard or Large Group Awareness Training?

OPPOSED. There is a clear distinction between Erhard Seminar Trainings and Werner Erhard, and between EST and LGAT. That all these articles have suffered from extensive conflict, poor writing and POV-pushing is not reason to nix the articles. I am shocked, shocked I say, to find the est article reduced to stub-level. You take a wiki-vacation for two weeks, and see what happens? There is plenty material on est to build a respectable, stand-alone article. If anything, the difficulty in this article is the distinction between the company Erhard Seminars Training, and their primary product, erhard seminars training or 'est'. In addition, I am troubled by the LGAT article, though it has come a long way of late. LGAT is a nebulous term, applied differently by different individuals with no clear definition. My time at MIT fits the definition of an LGAT, but MIT is not usually considered a LGAT. Thus moving something that is clearly defined like est into the nebulous LGAT is a step in the wrong direction. Ratagonia 18:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. I'm not one of the editors of this page - in fact, I hadn't seen it at all before today, so I'm just judging by the current version of the page. Right now, it tells the reader absolutely nothing about what 'EST' actually is: having read the article, I'm no more informed as to what 'EST' consists of than before I read it. The page on LGAT, on the other hand, at least actually contains information about the practice. Therefore, unless this page can be substantially improved from its current stub-level, I suggest merging the former into the latter. Terraxos 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. We do not lack material on est-the-org or on est-content: we simply need to bring it back -- quotes, references and all -- from the Wikipedia archives and improve its expression. This can best take place within the confines of a separate article or articles devoted to est, without the need to swamp (or fight for space in) articles with a broader/different scope, such as Werner Erhard or Large Group Awareness Training. -- Pedant17 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support - Merge all into a single Erhard article. The entire series of Erhard Werner articles are an example of WP:COAT that was created for a purpose which becomes clear once you read the original versions. Peace. Lsi john 13:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain what you mean by "the entire series of Erhard Werner articles". -- On reviewing the "original versions" of Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates, Scientology and Werner Erhard and Landmark Education I fail to detect the clear purpose alleged. The articles have various authors, styles and degrees of detail and sourcing. Do you have a conspiracy theory you'd like to share with us? -- Even if the listed articles (for example) had a clear common purpose (apart from building Wikipedia and providing factual information), they have since evolved extensively. The alleged purpose of the original texts bears little or no relationship to the existence of the articles today and even less to the issues of whether we should conflate Rosenberg/Erhard the man with est the org and with est the meme-set now. -- Pedant17 01:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In support of Merging this article into one article on Werner Erhard. I have not been involved in editing this page before, but it seems to me like both articles are about the same subject, Werner Erhard. And I don't think that the LGAT article would be a good place to put this info.--Sailor1889 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In support of Merging this article with the Werner Erhard Article. Though I think est is a noteworthy subject, the present article has been reduced to a stub, and my understanding is that the deleted material violates copyright issues for wiki. I am mystified by the suggestion of merging it with Large Group Awareness Training Article. Is Large Group Awareness Training a phenomenon that has become noteworthy? I've never heard of it outside these discussions. I too have wondered how it can be distinguished from such large groups as IBM, the Microsoft Corporation, or the Catholic Church, and are we to list all of those as well? But since we have nothing informative for est, I vote to combine Erhard Seminars Training into the Werner Erhard article.Ftord1960 20:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would regard LGATs as more noteworthy than est, since we could include all of est within the context of LGATs. But est itself has a certain degree of noteworthiness/notoriety. Plenty of informative material exists on the subject of est. The publications of Tipton and Pressman alone could furnish a substantial article with no danger of violating copyright issues if handled appropriately. The current sorry mangled state of the stub-article does not provide a good or typical or sufficient basis for discussions on its future. -- Pedant17 01:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Support merging with Werner Erhard article This topic can only be historical since it no longer exists. It seems a good candidate to merge it into the Werner Erhard article as something he originated, or even the Werner Erhard and Associates article (also no longer in existence). One article seems plenty. FreedomByDesign 19:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia abounds in historical articles, many of which link to predecessor articles and successor articles. One article cannot do justice in a short space of bytes to the impact, content and influence of est. A mere section in the biography of Erhard/Rosenberg, relating primarily to only a small period of his career, would do even less justice to the topic. -- Pedant17 01:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

SUPPORT: I believe that this article should be merged, but not into LGAT. In actuality it already is merged in the Werner Erhard Article. A review of both articles shows that only a very small percentage of the article (about 1/5) is not already included in the WE article. Those areas that are not included are either unsourced or are listings of other books, periodicals and external links that could easily be added to the Werner Erhard Article. It would not be appropriate to merge this material into the LGAT article since that article is a review of many organizations and this would be forcing an inappropriate amount of information on one subject into this overview.--Saladdays 19:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Totting up percentages of current articles forces the argument onto the basis of current texts, but the dynamism of Wikipedia will ensure growth in size and complexity of any article on a matter of current interest. And then we will have to decouple any merged subjects again. It seems inappropriate to merge the extensive est material into the Werner Erhard article since we have written that article as a biography and merging would involve forcing an inappropriate amount of information on one subject into this overview. -- Pedant17 01:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this entry, anyway?
This is clearly a stub. I've been reading it and watching it shrink. It says absolutely nothing and gives me virtually no information as to what "EST" was, what it entailed, what was the big deal about it...nothing. I thought wiki was supposed to be an source of information. Historical included. You can't reduce EST, with the rich history it does have, to a stub. Merging it does no justice. EST was a big movement. Not WEA, not Erhard, but EST. And every other so-called LGAT deserves an equally informative entry if the info is NP:OV. A lack thereof, is criminal to the concept of knowledge itself and free information. What happened here? I'm reading the history and it goes from information to less info, to a stub. WHY? You guys are actually deciding if an entry is notable, one such as this? Every well-sourced article is notable to _someone_. So what's the deal here, why the voting? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 04:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding turning Wikipedia into a link-farm
At 21:37 on 7 April 2007 a Wikipedian removed the external reference which read:


 * Comprehensive list of articles on Erhard, est, Landmark, and the Landmark Forum at the Rick A. Ross Institute for the Stundy of Destructive Cults, Contoversial Groups and Movements

with the edit-summary: "External links - citation link is not active". The link appears live as of 2007-08-14 and contains internal dating suggesting maintenance as recently as June 2007; whether or not we regard it as "active" has no relevance to its value as (at least) an historical record of the historical entity known as est. Let's restore either this link or individual links to each of the valuable sub-links as appropriate. -- Pedant17 02:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychology Today article
At 02:39 on 8 April 2007 a Wikipedian removed the text which read:


 * Uncomplimentary article about est in Psychology Today (August 1975)

with the edit-summary: "removed - source was dead link". The link given appears live as of 2007-08-14. Let's restore a properly cited reference to Psychology Today's by-lined and published contemporary commentary on the est phenomenon, including for reader-convenience a link to a transcript. -- Pedant17 02:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't help but agree with you on both of the above points. A live link, properly cited reference...it goes in. The POV is that it's a fact.

Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone get the sense that...
...certain people are quietly hoping the Pressman book fades into obscurity and goes away? Because the information it points to perhaps brings people to the actual articles that may be found online in places that certian people hope the public will not visit? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 02:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Organizational career
At 00:11 on 19 April 2007 a Wikipedian replaced this text:

Corporate changes
In corporate terms, est originally incorporated in 1973 as a non-profit foundation in the State of California under the name of the Foundation for the Realization of Man. An amendment to the articles of incorporation, filed in July 1976, renamed it as the est Foundation.

The "est" organization metamorphosed - supporters might say "transformed itself" - in 1980-1981 into the corporate "Werner Erhard and Associates" (WE&A). WE&A replaced the "est training" with the course dubbed "The Forum" in 1984. In 1991 a series of name-changes saw WE&A become "Landmark Education" and "The Forum" became "The Landmark Forum". Landmark Education continues to operate seminars with similar methods and teachings. Steven Pressman, comparing the Landmark Forum with the est course, states that the courses' "words and phrases ... had hardly changed", and that a Landmark Education course presenter equated the two courses with the phrase "when this work was first presented".

As of 2007, Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT) programs like Landmark Education contribute to promoting the estian ideas and concepts of Werner Erhard, though without stressing his name, his controversial reputation or his ideological forebears.

with the following:

Timeline

 * 1971 - Erhard Seminars Training Inc, first est Training held in San Francisco, California
 * 1973 - The Foundation for the Realization of Man - incorporated as a non-profit foundation in California - subsequently the name of the foundation was changed to the est Foundation in 1976, and in 1981 the Werner Erhard Foundation
 * 1975 - est, an educational corporation
 * 1981 - Werner Erhard and Associates
 * 1984 - WE&A replaces the est training with "The Forum" www.wernererhard.info

and explained the edit with the edit-summary "Corporate changes - establishing neutral timeline".

The article thus lost a wealth of narrative detail, well supported by citations, but swapped for a brief and somewhat disjointed list. It lost the ease of maintenance of an unstructured text, eminently amenable to expansion and NPOVizing, in favor of a restrictive and constrained bullet-point format. It lost a precise published citation to the New York Times on a course name-change in favor of a reference to a partisan site, thus swapping a reliable source for an unreliable one. It lost the metaphorical balanced alternatives of "metamorphosed" and "transformed itself" in favor of vague weasel words: "the name of the foundation was changed". It lost the sense of continuity and expansion into the age after 1984 in favor of an an ominous silence, a lack of facts or of conversation, a cutting-off of possibility.

Let's restore/merge the lost detail as a contribution to the past of est.

-- Pedant17 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd agree to the restoration but does it matter at this point, Pendant? You can write a solid article with citations and just have someone with a "NPOV" come along and give it the "revisionist" treatment, which is not uncommon with anything Erhard-est-Landmark-WE&A related. The fact that I had to use so many hyphens attests to that fact. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 17:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Too Long? I don't think so.
The current article reads well, in an orderly fashion. More importantly, this article is no longer a stub! It is now an article! I can read this, get information I haven't gotten before, and be left to my own independent thinking about the subject. Who tagged this as too long? And why? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 23:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that sometime in the 1970's, the Board of Psychology in Hawaii ruled that EST was practicing psychotherapy without a license, and that it could no longer do that. I will try to get more research to back that up, but this should be added to the article.  --  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC).

Removing unsourced material
At 00:13 on 19 April 2007 a Wikipedian removed this text:


 * revenue = ▲$38 million USD (1981)
 * net_income = ▲$Unknown USD (1981)
 * num_employees = 300 employees (1981)

with the comment: "removed unsourced material".

This action does not appear to follow the recommended approach to unsourced material -- compare WP:CITE which states:

If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing fact after the sentence or removing it. If you have time to try and find a reference please do so, it's better to have 5 fully referenced articles rather than 50 articles all tagged with fact. It is often just as quick to find and create a reference as it is to tag something with fact. If you are unsure of how to create references, you may find this tool very useful as it will create all the necessary reference code from just a few details you supply.

Consider the following in deciding which action to take:

1. If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the fact tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.

2. If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it as very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense.

The deleted material appears neither harmful nor absurd. Let's restore it accordingly, either tagged appropriately or sourced.

-- Pedant17 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Short and useless
It seems that through overzealous moderating of potentially POV content, this article has been made totally useless. It contains almost no information about EST, besides general history. Can we get some actual details back?

--71.141.241.109 08:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Just look at prior "history" versions of the article.  It used to be a lot more detailed, with info backed up by some pretty good references.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Attack Therapy
Ebay3, I say this with all due respect and objectivity: Although it was decades ago, and you may think it seems like a stretch, as it reads, EST fits into the category and techniques of attack therapy, however hard that may be for some people to accept. I understand the attack therapy article has some way to go, but a lot of research on attack therapy was born out of EST, and it may be a bitter truth enthusiasts of the now-defunct EST have to accept. It is a NPOV case and not a stretch as you have commented. This is very much as case of "it is what it is." The bottom link to it provides insight. Symon's doc attests to the techniques, btw, via footage of seminars. Respectfully, Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 07:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the comments above. EST never made any claims to be a therapy of any kind and to label it a therapy is innacurate. I agree with user Ebay3 that it is a stretch and I would add that it also a mischaracterization. --Saladdays 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You may disagree with the "therapy" label, but the techniques stick. Read the literature and accept what the research has provided. It is more thorough than any est-PR. I'm sorry. Salad, you'd really not like to see the footage. It'll hit too close to home. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 23:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to second Arcana and agree as well. This is supported also by the academic literature on attack therapy, and the studies on this organization and its various name changes of organizations.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC).
 * The Democratic People's Republic of Korea never made any claim to membership of any Axis of Evil and to label it as a member of the Axis of Evil would not express this viewpoint accurately. To refer to the DPRK and any "Axis of Evil" in the same sentence would constitute a stretch and also a mischaracterization. Similarly for the association between est and Attack therapy, the three referenced published sources in the Attack therapy article who make the case for such an association notwithstanding. -- Pedant17 04:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Added a video link
I saw that someone had added links before- (which seem to be dead now anyway)but they were deleted as link spam. I don't know what those videos were, but I found a one minute clip of Werner Erhard talking about the Est Training while doing a google video search. Given the subject of the article, I do not think what I have added could be construed as spam. Ebay3 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed it (again) as linkspam and obvious copyvio of material copyrighted, which is most likely owned by Landmark Education. Cirt (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Ross Institute Internet Archives
This link should be retained in the External links subsection of this article. The non-profit organization The Ross Institute Internet Archives is an Internet archive resource and is officially registered as a library resource in the state of New Jersey. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates, The Ross Institute Internet Archives for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements


 * The NJLA is a corporation that offers memberships to any interested individuals and institutions against payment; being a paid-up member does not confer any official library status. Past discussions on RS/N and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions have tended to the view that rickross.com is not a suitable link for Wikipedia, as it routinely breaches copyright. Jayen 466 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Past discussions have involved links to specific articles, not to the archives themselves. In addition I was pretty sure past discussions had not come to any consensus on the matter, and certainly not to linking in an external links section as opposed to references. Cirt (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW,  Jayen 466 01:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Statements from 3 users on the matter does not appear to constitute consensus. At any rate, it is relatively common practice to link to versions of webpages through Internet Archives. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The referenced RS/N discussion had comments from considerably more users. At any rate, there was not a single opposing voice on MCQ, which after all should be the forum for settling these disputes. Perhaps we should raise the matter there again, in order to obtain a clear consensus? (As was pointed out at RS/N, rickross.com is not an Internet archive in the proper sense of the word; no facility for robots.txt, simply articles reproduced without consent of the owners.) Jayen 466 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment - The Ross Institute Internet Archives
Inclusion of a link to The Ross Institute Internet Archives in the external links section of this article. 01:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC) This link should be retained in the External links subsection of this article. The non-profit organization The Ross Institute Internet Archives is an Internet archive resource and is officially registered as a library resource in the state of New Jersey. More info at and.
 * Statement by Cirt
 * Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates, The Ross Institute Internet Archives for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements

Furthermore, links to the website http://web.archive.org/ (Internet Archives) is commonplace on Wikipedia. This is practically the same. If we allow links to the Internet Archives archived versions of webpages, we should allow links to the library resource and non-profit organization The Ross Institute Internet Archives in the WP:EL section of this article. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC) In response to, below, the other link I had removed in March 2008 was a link to Google Video, certainly quite a different matter from linking to Internet Archives or other similar non-profit educational organizations. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to 's comments below, either an organization is a non-profit organization, or it is not. The Ross Institute Internet Archives is. The fact that the organization sells DVDs, books or other products and services is irrelevant. It is a non-profit, educational resource and Internet archive, and functions in very much the same manner as the Internet Archives, and should be treated as such. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In essence, the status of links in the WP:EL section of articles to the Internet Archives and The Ross Institute Internet Archives websites on Wikipedia should be treated the same for both. Cirt (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Statement by Jayen466

I've said before on Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2008/August, and on Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_11, that I honestly can't see how using this site can possibly satisfy WP:EL and Copyrights. None of the articles on the site are licensed, as required by policy; they are reproduced without the knowledge and consent of the owners, as evident from the site's copyright policy:

[http://www.rickross.com/disclaimer.html rickross.com: "All META tags, page titles, keywords and other content descriptions used throughout this website are only intended to assist search engines for research and locating purposes. This in no way, shape or form is intended to mislead anyone by implying any official representation and/or relationship exists between this website and the owners of any trademarks, service marks and/or copyrights, which may contain the same keywords and/or titles." ... "Any publisher, Webmaster or news service (i.e., official and legal holder of copyright) that objects to their material being included in this archive may request that it be removed and/or that future material be excluded. An official written and signed request sent via fax or regular mail made by the copyright holder and/or their legal representative on company or legal letterhead will be honored."]

Some of the material hosted on rickross.com is for sale online by the legitimate owners. Example:

While the site's non-profit status has no bearing on the copyright situation, it should be noted that rickross.com functions as a commercial site, detailing a range of expert witness and intervention/deprogramming services complete with hourly rates:    as well as selling DVDs  and soliciting donations.

This is in stark contrast to the Wayback machine, which
 * unlike rickross.com has official recognition as a library in parts of the US,
 * simply shows original webpages as they were at some point in the past, rather than taking third-party texts, reformatting them according to their own style guideline and mixing them with advertisements for professional services, and
 * offers robots.txt functionality, allowing copyright owners to opt out.

The two are not comparable. Any site can (and many do) collect and put up interesting material belonging to third parties, without license, and claim that by doing so they are satisfying a public interest – Youtube e.g. is full of such unlicensed material, whose presence is welcomed by millions of Internet users. However, WP policy on these cases is clear and unambiguous. Jayen 466 02:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Responding to Cirt's comment above, at Mr Ross refers to "my fees", rather than those of the Ross Institute. I understand Mr Ross earns his livelihood by providing these services. Again, this does not affect the copyright situation.  Jayen 466 02:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment from Barnham

I agree with user Jayen466. As such, is not in keeping with Copyrights or WP:EL and should NOT be allowed in this article. Barnham (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The documents at the Ross Institute are posted without the knowledge and consent of their owners.
 * The site promotes a point of view. (being "non profit" does not mean it is neutral)
 * The site does advertise one individual (Rick Ross) and offers items for sale.

If the Rick Ross website contains material that is in violation of copyright it should be linked to. In a different topic on this page, Cirt advocated not linking to material that is in violation of copyright. Ebay3 (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by Ebay3

For reasons state, support NOT including links to Rick Ross material in any form. Ratagonia (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment from Ratagonia

Per WP:EL, links to sites violating copyrights shouldn't be included. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is a comment by Stifle
 * And what of Internet Archive? Can that site be linked to on Wikipedia? It clearly is hosting material from other copyrighted websites on http://web.archive.org/ Cirt (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC closed at 09:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC). 6 editors weighed in. Consensus was not to include the the link in the external links section. Cirt (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Two users that commented in the above RFC, and, blocked for (confirmed) inappropriate use of sock accounts, see Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Open Directory Project Links
The DMOZ search template, and by implication all DMOZ search links, is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Templates for deletion. Qazin (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So... what is it?
This article never describes exactly what est is. The Getting It: The psychology of est article actually has more about the program than this one, and it's not much. --NE2 02:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article really needs an expert, hopefully someone can help out. If it was such a big movement there surely must be more knowledge than this out there. As it stands this article reads like a stub? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspar esq. (talk • contribs)

Removal of names associated with est
On April 19, 2007 a Wikipedian removed from the article a list of important/prominent names in the history of est with the edit-summary "no need for a list of non notable people here". Since Wikipedia has no need to remove lists of people associated with the subjects of its articles, we can restore this information and regain a sense of the associations and prominence of some of those involved in the est saga, with links wherever appropriate. Names involved could include:

-- Pedant17 (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Enoch Calloway, Advisory Board Member
 * Vincent Drucker, Sales
 * Werner Erhard, Founder
 * Stewart Esposito, CEO
 * Fernando Flores, curriculum development consultant
 * Gary Grace, CFO
 * Joan Holmes, executive
 * Randy McNamara, est trainer
 * Robert Larzelere, M.D., Director Well Being Dept.
 * Jack Mantos, M.D., Research Director
 * Harry Margolis, tax attorney
 * Brian Regnier, est Trainer
 * Harry Rosenberg, associate
 * Joan Rosenberg, volunteers supervisor
 * Laurel Scheaf, President
 * Gonneke Spits, associate
 * Nancy Zapolski, est Trainer

Missing: Erhard was trained by Scientology
Erhard was trained by Scientology. Most of EST is Scientology. 208.116.58.18 (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing: Erhard was "Curt Wilhelm von Savage"
. 208.116.58.18 (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of external links
On April 19, 2007 at 1604 hours a Wikipedian removed passages/links from the article and made the claim in the edit-summary "External links: rick ross website & forum have been determined not WP:RS)". The first removed text related to Mark Brewer's article in Psychology Today: this currently appears as a reference in the article, but without the advantage of a courtesy on-line available transcription at http://www.rickross.com/reference/est/estpt8.html. I have not seen any response to my query on the talk-page of 23 April 2007 as to the reasons for suppressing this information. Let's  build the web and avoid rash claims and sweeping characterizations of useful archives. -- Pedant17 (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that there was a related RfC a while back:   Jayen 466 01:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that multiple accounts that commented in that RfC were subsequently confirmed and blocked as sockpuppets. For more on that, see Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The accounts confirmed and blocked that had commented in that RfC are and . Cirt (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The RFC referenced, apart from its deficiencies as already noted, related to links in the external links section, not to courtesy links where full bibliographic reference exists to the original sources. Nor did it establish that the "rick ross website & forum have been determined not WP:RS". -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is too short and uninformative
Hi.

I think this article is too short and uninformative to be a full wikipedia article. It seems barely more than a stub.

I come to wikipedia for in-depth facts and analysis of subjects. This article provides neither. I have learned far more about EST from other websites than from this wikipedia article.

Can't someone expand and upgrade this article?

Ronjoseph (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For a long time the article was plagued by abusive socking, see Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. This has made it somewhat difficult for the community to improve the quality of the article. But feel free to help out yourself, if you are aware of material from WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of statistics
On April 20, 2007, at 1622 hours, a Wikipedian removed statistics relating to 1981, giving the edit-summary: "removed unsourced material". Rather than removing the material, let's restore it, tag it, and encourage other editors to comment and provide sources for these alleged facts. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The account that removed this material from the article was, this account was ✅ by checkuser as a sock of and blocked indef, more information at Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of link to Large Group Awareness Training
On April 20, 2007 at 1625 hours a Wikipedian removed a link from the text of this article to Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT). Since the originators of the LGAT concept often reference est as an archetypal LGAT (compare List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations), and since the LGAT category has become a respected and useful term in sociology/psychology, and since Talk-page discussion has subsequently stabilized in support of discussing est as an LGAT, our article can surely include the reciprocal web-building gesture of an informative and explanatory link -- rather than merely including a "see also" which does not even cross-reference the "LGAT" abbreviation. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The account that removed this material from the article was, this account was ✅ by checkuser as a sock of and blocked indef, more information at Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of corporate history context and referencing
On April 20, 2007 at 1633 hours a Wikipedian changed the timeline of corporate changes in the article to exclude a reference (while claiming to provide a (non-existent) "more direct and reliable source than previous"). The same edit introduced vague language which leaves unclear who changed the names. The same edit eliminated detail, claiming it had "removed POV wording". Let's restore the referencing and the detail -- then we can focus on any (as yet unidentified) "POV wording". -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The account that made this change was, this account was ✅ by checkuser as a sock of and blocked indef, more information at Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

EST discredited
EST has been rated as definitely discredited according to 2006 research : Norcross, Garofalo and Koocher 2006. Discredited psychological treatments and tests: A delphi poll. Professional psychology, research and practice vol 137 no5, 515-522ISBNation (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of key people
On April 21, 2007 at 1428 hours a Wikipedian edited the info-box list of key people (plural) -- even though some of the purged names had references. Let's restore an edited list and insert any missing references. We could use as a basis:

Laurel Scheaf, President

A. Stewart Esposito, est trainer

Art Schreiber, Counsel

Harry Margolis, tax attorney

Bob Curtis, Executive

Gary Grace, financial officer

Vincent Drucker, employee

Enoch Calloway, Advisory Board member

Joan Rosenberg, Volunteers Supervisor

Steven Zaffron, Executive

Harry Rosenberg, Executive

Gonneke Spits, Office Manager

Carlos Fernando Flores Labra, Curriculum development

Nancy Zapolski, est Trainer

Brian Regnier, est Trainer

Randy McNamara, est Trainer

Joan Holmes, Consulting Educational Psychologist

Robert Larzelere, M.D., Director Well Being Dept.

Jack Mantos, M.D., Research Director

-- Pedant17 (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Administrators'_noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the organizations spreading the ideas of Est
-- Pedant17 (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the organizations spreading the ideas of Est
-- Pedant17 (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of learned opinions on controversial topics
On April 29, 2007 at 0102 hours a Wikipedian removed scholarly discussion on Est, commenting in the edit-summary "Controversy: removed extra woding that was not about controversies and did not add information about the organization)". If we want to make a distinction between controversy and comments about controversy we could set up separate (sub-)sections. Since the removed material clearly adds information about the flagship product of the Erhard Seminars Training organization, as well as about the organization itself when referred to as "est", let's restore this information as sourced secondary material from acknowledged reputable commentators: Marc Galanter writes in his statistical study Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion:

After an initial correspondence with Werner Erhard, I met at some length with the movement's director of research so that we might consider studying this transformation. Our discussions of getting it, however, yielded no operational definition.

Eileen Barker wrote of the ambiguous status of est, speaking of

... movements which do not fall under the definition of religion used by the Institute [for the study of American Religion], but which are sometimes called 'cults.' Examples would be est, Primal Therapy or Rebirthing. -- Pedant17 (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of name-changes summary
On April 21, 2007, at 1450 hours, a Wikipedian removed a table summarizing some of the more important of the various organizations associated with Est, commenting in the edit-summary: "Successive organizational name-changes: removing a redundant and unsourced section". We now lack any such clear and graphic summary of the organizations concerned, which makes it difficult for anyone attempting to reconstruct the history and development of Estian development in its larger organizational context. Accordingly, lets restore and expand this vital information. We could start with: == Removal of name-changes summary == On April 21, 2007, at 1450 hours, a Wikipedian removed a table summarizing some of the more important of the various organizations associated with Est, commenting in the edit-summary: "Successive organizational name-changes: removing a redundant and unsourced section". We now lack any such clear and graphic summary of the organizations concerned, which makes it difficult for anyone attempting to reconstruct the history and development of Estian development in its larger organizational context. Accordingly, lets restore and expand this vital information. We could start with: == Some of the organizations spreading the ideas of Est =={| border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 style="border-collapse:collapse;"
 * Name
 * From
 * To
 * The Foundation for the Realization of Man
 * 1973
 * July 1976
 * est, a.e.c.
 * 1975
 * The est Foundation
 * July 1976
 * February 1981
 * Werner Erhard and Associates
 * February 1981
 * January 16, 1991
 * Breakthrough Technologies
 * January 16, 1991
 * January 23, 1991
 * Transnational Education Corp.
 * January 23, 1991
 * May 7, 1991
 * Breakthrough Technologies
 * January 16, 1991
 * January 23, 1991
 * Transnational Education Corp.
 * January 23, 1991
 * May 7, 1991
 * January 23, 1991
 * May 7, 1991

-- Pedant17 (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Landmark Education Corporation
 * May 7, 1991
 * February 2003
 * Landmark Education, LLC
 * February 2003
 * }
 * February 2003
 * }
 * }

Removal of classification and financial data
On April 29, 2007, a Wikipedian removed info-box information about est without explaining this deletion. I propose that we restore/expand this otherwise missing classificatory and financial information, thus: | industry = Self-help, Personal development, Large Group Awareness Training (1981)
 * revenue = ▲$38 million USD
 * net_income = ▲$Unknown USD (1981)
 * num_employees = 300 employees (1981) -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of well-sourced timeline items
On April 29, 2008, at 0117 hours, a Wikipedian removed timeline material, stating in the edit-summary "Timeline: removed poorly sourced timeline - An evangelical Church is simply NOT a reliable source to cite from. Sourced instead from wernererhard.info". The Evangelical Church in Hessen-Nassau (Evangelische Kirche in Hessen und Nassau) represents in its region one of the most prominent and venerable religious bodies in Germany, the Evangelical Church in Germany, incorporating as it does the mainline Lutheran and Reformed traditions there and representing about 36% of the population the Hesse-Nassau area. The precise information published by the Church appears more reliable and gives much greater detail than that of http://wernererhard.info -- The edit also removed a sourcing (though not the sourced information) to Stephen Tipton, a reliable and careful academic source. Given the reliability of the original sources and the inaccuracies of the edit-summary, lets restore and incorporate the removed material. appropriately sourced. We could use:

Timeline

 * October 1971 — Erhard Seminars Training, first est seminar held in San Francisco, California
 * 1973 — The Foundation for the Realization of Man incorporated as a non-profit foundation in California
 * July 1976 — est Foundation - amendment to the articles of incorporation, California
 * February 1981 — Werner Erhard and Associates (WE&A) set up
 * 1984 — WE&A replaces the est training with "The Forum" — later to become "The Landmark Forum" in the 1990s
 * January 16, 1991 — Breakthrough Technologies
 * * signed by attorney Donald R. Share
 * * Arthur Schreiber as initial agent


 * January 23, 1991 — Transnational Education Corp.
 * April 29, 1991 — signing of the re-naming of Transnational Education Corp. as "Landmark Education Corporation"
 * May 2, 1991 — filing of the re-naming of Transnational Education Corp. as Landmark Education Corporation
 * * Brian Regnier signed as President and Secretary of Transnational Education Corp


 * May 7, 1991 — filing of the re-naming of Transnational Education Corp. as "Landmark Education Corporation"


 * * Harry Rosenberg as director and treasurer


 * June 5, 1991 — filing of the re-naming of Werner Erhard and Associates as "Landmark Education International, Inc."
 * June 5, 1991 — Werner Erhard and Associates International, Inc., now a subsidiary of Landmark Education Corporation
 * * Gilbert H. Judson, president
 * * Regina Tierney, secretary

-- Pedant17 (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * July 14, 1992 — Alexandria, VA - a federal district judge rules that Landmark Education Corporation did not have successor liability, in the case brought by a Silver Spring, Maryland woman for emotional damages allegedly due to participation in the Forum under Werner Erhard and Associates.
 * February 2003 - Landmark Education Corporation became "Landmark Education LLC"

Removal of discussion on the contemporary influence of est
On May 18, 2007, at 1927 hours, a Wikipedian removed a sentence which recounted the future fate of estian ideas and concepts, noting in the edit-summary "removing unsourced opinion". Those ideas and their development have relevance to the topic of Erhard Seminar Training: we need to document the process rather than ignore it. Thus we could add something like: successor groups like Landmark Education contribute to promoting the ideas and concepts which Werner Erhard made central to est. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of listed ground rules
On May 18, 2007, at 2037 hours, a Wikipedian removed a list of estian in-seminar rules, commenting "unsourced", and thereby depriving our article of information for which Est gained a degree of notoriety/notability. We can replace this removed text segment with summary material from the reliable source:  -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Poor quality additions
This edit by does not make sense. The wording is circular and confusing. It is from a primary source. Primary sources should be avoided on this page. It uses internal, est organization jargon and loaded language. Overall, a very poor addition to the page, that further serves to degrade the quality of the page. -- Cirt (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * = has added this back, again. This page is not supposed to function as a form of POV advertising for Erhard Seminars Training est. Please, avoid primary sources, and avoid jargon and loaded language usage which is quite similar to if not verbatim quotes from promotional material from Erhard organizations. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I've removed the Third Opinion request made in regard to this question from the Third Opinion project page. The guidelines for the project say, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page." I've not been able to find any discussion of this matter here or on either editor's talk page. If the dispute continues after the matter has been discussed, please feel free to re–list the dispute at the project. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 20:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Posted comment to user's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that primary sources are probably best not used, particularly in the lead. There seem to be reliable third-party descriptions of the purpose of the group, so they would be preferable. In a longer more developed article, maybe the primary source material could be added in a later section. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The 3O request has been relisted as improvidently removed. I shot too fast. (See my talk page for a few more details, if you're interested.) Mea culpa and sorry for the disruption. Sheepish regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK )
 * Thanks, and no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the phrase used is either jargon or circular and confusing. The language I added was "the purpose of the est training was the transformation of one's ability to experience living so that problem situations cleared up just in the process of life itself". This is sourced by an article in the journal of psychiatric therapies written by victor gioscia and Werner Erhard (only one of whom is a primary source). I also added another secondary source printed in quest magazine by Eliezer Sobel. In keeping with user John Carter's point about primary source in the lead. I can change the ref to the other third party ref. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MLKLewis (talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "the purpose of the est training was the transformation of one's ability to experience living so that problem situations cleared up just in the process of life itself" = this quote is a primary source. And not to mention you added it, without quotes, that is copyvio and plagiarism. -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to the copyvio and plagarism problems, the problem of primary sourcing is not addressed. One of the two authors was the creator of the system. On that basis, unless there is somewhere a very clear statement in an independent source that the sentence in question was written by Victor Gioscia (and I find it almost impossible to imagine that there is such a source) we would be obligated to treat it as a primary source. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with this comment by admin . -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. Even if it wasn't plagarism, and even if it wasn't a primary source, it's still horribly phrased.  If I were a proponent of est, I'd be embarrassed to use this as an example of what the training is all about; it seems to say "we teach you to walk through life oblivious to your problems," and I expect that version of the sentence would justifiably raise the hackles of many!  As the old saying goes, "If you don't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say."  This sentence, being a rather vacuous example of English, seems to do neither.  If it has any place in an encyclopedia entry, it would be as a quotation, possibly a  for color as a section intro, but this article will need a lot of work and additional detail before it can afford quotes for color. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the confusion about the phrasing as voiced by, the reason it sounds confusing, is indeed because it is internal organization loaded language and jargon. More info at "Loading the language", from Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism by Dr. Robert Jay Lifton. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

On what basis are you stating that primary sources should be avoided on this page?Wjhonson (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:PSTS, WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB come to mind. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of listed ground rules
On May 18, 2007, at 2037 hours, a Wikipedian removed a list of estian in-seminar rules, commenting "unsourced", and thereby depriving our article of information for which Est gained a degree of notoriety/notability. We can replace this removed text segment with summary material from the reliable source:  -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Poor quality additions
This edit by does not make sense. The wording is circular and confusing. It is from a primary source. Primary sources should be avoided on this page. It uses internal, est organization jargon and loaded language. Overall, a very poor addition to the page, that further serves to degrade the quality of the page. -- Cirt (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * = has added this back, again. This page is not supposed to function as a form of POV advertising for Erhard Seminars Training est. Please, avoid primary sources, and avoid jargon and loaded language usage which is quite similar to if not verbatim quotes from promotional material from Erhard organizations. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I've removed the Third Opinion request made in regard to this question from the Third Opinion project page. The guidelines for the project say, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page." I've not been able to find any discussion of this matter here or on either editor's talk page. If the dispute continues after the matter has been discussed, please feel free to re–list the dispute at the project. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 20:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Posted comment to user's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that primary sources are probably best not used, particularly in the lead. There seem to be reliable third-party descriptions of the purpose of the group, so they would be preferable. In a longer more developed article, maybe the primary source material could be added in a later section. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The 3O request has been relisted as improvidently removed. I shot too fast. (See my talk page for a few more details, if you're interested.) Mea culpa and sorry for the disruption. Sheepish regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK )
 * Thanks, and no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the phrase used is either jargon or circular and confusing. The language I added was "the purpose of the est training was the transformation of one's ability to experience living so that problem situations cleared up just in the process of life itself". This is sourced by an article in the journal of psychiatric therapies written by victor gioscia and Werner Erhard (only one of whom is a primary source). I also added another secondary source printed in quest magazine by Eliezer Sobel. In keeping with user John Carter's point about primary source in the lead. I can change the ref to the other third party ref. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MLKLewis (talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "the purpose of the est training was the transformation of one's ability to experience living so that problem situations cleared up just in the process of life itself" = this quote is a primary source. And not to mention you added it, without quotes, that is copyvio and plagiarism. -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to the copyvio and plagarism problems, the problem of primary sourcing is not addressed. One of the two authors was the creator of the system. On that basis, unless there is somewhere a very clear statement in an independent source that the sentence in question was written by Victor Gioscia (and I find it almost impossible to imagine that there is such a source) we would be obligated to treat it as a primary source. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with this comment by admin . -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. Even if it wasn't plagarism, and even if it wasn't a primary source, it's still horribly phrased.  If I were a proponent of est, I'd be embarrassed to use this as an example of what the training is all about; it seems to say "we teach you to walk through life oblivious to your problems," and I expect that version of the sentence would justifiably raise the hackles of many!  As the old saying goes, "If you don't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say."  This sentence, being a rather vacuous example of English, seems to do neither.  If it has any place in an encyclopedia entry, it would be as a quotation, possibly a  for color as a section intro, but this article will need a lot of work and additional detail before it can afford quotes for color. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the confusion about the phrasing as voiced by, the reason it sounds confusing, is indeed because it is internal organization loaded language and jargon. More info at "Loading the language", from Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism by Dr. Robert Jay Lifton. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

On what basis are you stating that primary sources should be avoided on this page?Wjhonson (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:PSTS, WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB come to mind. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
In my opinion this article is flawed in a number of regards. Firstly EST (the "training") preceded the organisation. Secondly in the 80's/90's EST was not a two weekend course but more of a total life training, in the way that Scientology is, that expanded into every aspect of one's life. People I knew who became involved never stopped going on "courses" once they were hooked. When they had children they even began "training" them too! There is no description in the article of the style of these training sessions. To give a flavour: particpants we issued with paper bags when they entered the room as many vomited from the stress of the sessions.

The doors remained locked and guarded throughout the session, which also ratcheted up the pressure on trainees through "exposing" the basic need for "bathroom breaks" as an inability to face up to inadequacy. Participants were "encouraged", one after the other, to go up on stage and admit their "weaknesses" in front of the audience. This total and ritualised humiliation of the "supplicant" and their breakdown was portrayed as cathartic and "cleansing". These techniques were quite openly based upon brain-washing techniques, and applied modern psychology to augment the ancient and worst excesses of religious indoctrination.

The organisation has always demanded a high level of secrecy, portraying this demand in a simlar manner to other cults: a sign of loyalty, the inability of others to understand, the desire of the uncleansed and weak to destroy the vision, etc, etc.

My research a few years ago showed the EST "system" came from a co-operative work between Erhard and one other, whose name escapes me. The two split. The other is South American, I believe Chilean, a high profile figure, who works with the government, and who also continues this a violent approach to psychotherapy and its application.

I'd be happy to help sort some of this out, if the EST crowd aren't flaming Wiki into submission too! LookingGlass (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

est in lower case? What a joke.
Back when this was trendy, and every Hollywood nitwit was into it, and it was mentioned in the media all the bloody time, and people not from California didn't know what it meant, it was EST, not est. Varlaam (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice re Checkuser case
A checkuser case resulted in "confirm" on several users as sockpuppets of each other, that edited articles on closely related topics including Landmark Education, Werner Erhard, Landmark Education litigation, Scientology and Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training, and Werner Erhard and Associates, among others. As a result, several of these users and sockpuppets of each other have been blocked. The checkuser case page is here: Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So, what was it?
Lots of information on the business structures conducting the training, no information about what the seminars consisted of or what the training was. Laughing Vulcan 11:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging Erhard Seminars Training (est) into the Landmark Education topic is a terrible idea
To merge with est what appears to be no more than just another seminar company would be to have the tail wag the dog. Although restricted mainly to large metropolitan areas, est was nevertheless a national phenomenon in the 1970s. It helped define for both the better and the worse the zeitgeist of that decade in particular. I have never heard of Landmark Education. Naturally Landmark Education bears resemblances to est. Christianity bears resemblances to Judaism, but that's not a reason to merge Christianity with Judaism. Erhard Seminars Training (est) should continue to stand alone as a topic.QuintBy (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms of EST.
I noticed a lack of criticism about Erhard Seminars Training in the article, yet I'm sure that I heard such criticism during the 1980s.

As I remember, I heard EST called a brainwashing class that used social pressure as a means of controlling or modifying the behavior of enrollees. I also remember hearing EST criticized as misrepresenting its effect on the lives of enrollees. Rather than making any problems go away, be resolved, or be better managed, EST just taught people how to give up on trying to deal with them and put them out of mind, so to reach greater happiness through self-inflicted ignorance.

These memories are dated, 30 years old, and might not be completely accurate. But there was certainly some sort of important defect to EST that some people believed to have recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.13.218.94 (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The article changed significantly since Dec. 2007, I've removed the NPOV template, please use or better yet  for statements and detail issues here. This will help address them quickly, and sourced criticism should indeed be added. - RoyBoy 21:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'background' section of the wiki article "est and The Forum in popular culture" references several sourced criticisms of est that would be highly appropriate to include here. In fact, maybe that entire article should be merged into this one? It seems odd to have an article about references to est in pop culture that's longer and more detailed than the main est article itself.

It is not typical in a Wiki page to offer critique of the page's topic. However, clearly covering the impact of the est (from the latin for 'it is." California law did not allow for a latin word in trademarking so the longer title Erhard Seminars Training was added) training is fair and important. There certainly were a wide variety of reactions to the training and the organization, often a good reaction to the personal results but a dislike of the organizations practices.Speaking up (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Cultural Reference
In the first season of the TV series "Mork and Mindy" (ca. 1978), the episode "Mork Gets ERK" is clearly a parody of the (est) training. (A young David Letterman plays the trainer.) Perhaps someone should add a "Cultural References" section with this item in it. I'll leave it to the WP editors' community to decide if and how it should appear. 108.16.83.212 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan D. Moreno
There is a new book out by Jonathan D. Moreno called Impromptu Man that includes some material on the est training. I am looking through it for things to work into this article. MLKLewis (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I am working some material from this book into the article - it gives good overall historical perspective of the impact the est training had.--MLKLewis (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Article Uses Phoney Name for EST-Founder
The article incorrectly calls the EST-Founder "Werner Erhard". That wasn't his name; it was his phoney self-designated name.

For the sake of honesty and accuracy, the article should indicate that "Werner Erhard" wasn't his original name, and should call him by his actual name, at least at one place in the article.

The article has the attributes of an EST promotion.

65.8.169.50 (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Michael Ossipoff


 * We know it isn't his birth name. However, that isn't the only indicator we use in determining how to identify things here. Our naming conventions are such that we use the most commonly recognizable name, and the name by which that individual is most regularly and consistently referred to, even in print reference sources, is Werner Erhard. The article Werner Erhard goes into more detail on that topic, which is basically appropriate because the question of his name is most relevant to the topic of himself. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The name of the person who founded est was Werner Hans Erhard. The historical detail about Werner Erhard, that he changed his name from John Paul Rosenberg to Werner Erhard before he started est can be found in the article about Werner Erhard, which is a fact about the individual.RecoveringAddict (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Merging Erhard Seminars Training (est) into the Landmark Education topic is a terrible idea
To merge with est what appears to be no more than just another seminar company would be to have the tail wag the dog. Although restricted mainly to large metropolitan areas, est was nevertheless a national phenomenon in the 1970s. It helped define for both the better and the worse the zeitgeist of that decade in particular. I have never heard of Landmark Education. Naturally Landmark Education bears resemblances to est. Christianity bears resemblances to Judaism, but that's not a reason to merge Christianity with Judaism. Erhard Seminars Training (est) should continue to stand alone as a topic.QuintBy (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, for the reasons given (especially: "est was nevertheless a national phenomenon in the 1970s"). DrSocPsych (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the proposed merger is to create something which does not at this point yet clearly exist, which is a clearly obvious main article, under whatever name, for the phenomenon of est/Landmark as a whole. It might be under the name Landmark, which is what I proposed, but that was just for the purposes of creating some sort of central article on the topic, and that final name could itself although be changed if indicated. But there does seem to be some sort of reason to provide a clear and obvious central article on the topic in general, which so far as I can tell the topic as a whole does not yet have. It has also been suggested that Landmark Forum become the topic of the central article. The final title is probably less of a primary concern than the establishment of a single central article on the topic as a whole under whatever name. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "phenomenon of est/Landmark as a whole". There was the E.S.T. product (est), and then the WE&A product (the Forum), and then the Landmark Education/Worldwide product (The Landmark Forum).  These three things did not exist at the same time, they have different structures and intent, they have been received differently, they have different target audiences (apparently), and so forth.  --Tgeairn (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is simply wrong. The est courses were still run for some time while the tweaked version of est that was entitled as The Forum (begun in 1983) was itself tweaked. After the Forum was formally announced, est was still the product until the seminar leaders were transitioned over to the new format. Erhard created and controlled both est and the "gentler" Forum format. The Forum in the same format as run under WE&A continued to be held by Transnational Education, using the same corporate leadership, corporate employees, seminar leaders, offices, equipment, client lists, volunteers, etc. used under WE&A (minus several assets Erhard retained and a very few people, including Erhard, that did not remain with the organization). Ownership of the intellectual property behind est/The Forum was retained by Erhard and only licensed to (not sold to as part of the deal) Transnational Education (later renamed to Landmark Education). Modifications occurred over time, as one would reasonably expect, not instantly–there was no time for anything new to be developed in the little over 2 weeks between Erhard's initial commitment to liquidate WE&A in mid-January 1991 and finalization of the deal later that month. Moreover, Landmark Education licensed the intellectual property behind the programs from Erhard. A couple of Landmark spokespeople have claimed that as of sometime around 2002, Landmark fully acquired the intellectual property rather than let their license to use the intellectual property expire, which underlines that est lived and lives on in Landmark's offerings, as reliable references actually do state. Sources also note that Landmark continued/continues to include in participation statistics the numbers of participants under est and The Forum as well as Landmark Forum and other programs—valid and reasonable if these are a continuum arising from Erhard's original est, but an egregious misrepresentation if it is held that these are not directly related. The story that Landmark created a substantially new coursework at its corporate inception, and that the company and products bear no inherent relation to est, WE&A, The Forum, etc. is a fictional rationalization. &bull; Astynax talk 08:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Astynax here on the point that, if Landmark itself continues to count directly est-related statistics in its own statistics for the Landmark Forum or whatever, then we would be explicitly violating WP:OR to say that the company does not acknowledge the clear and self-admitted direct relationship, almost to the form of identity (barring slight changes, which most any product experiences over time) of the two groups. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Where does Landmark count est statistics in their own? What are you basing that on? No one in this conversation is saying that Landmark does not acknowledge that they purchased intellectual property rights from WE&A, where did you get that from? --Tgeairn (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources for any of this? So far in this (and other related conversations), no one has even mentioned "Transnational Education". When and how did that become Landmark? What spokespeople, to whom? I am again left with the impression that Astynax has access to extensive information about a company that he/she continues to promote as a religion. If all of that supposed information is indeed available in the sources, then an actual well-formed and well-sourced history would be valuable here.  Most of what I have seen in what some editors are calling academic sources is not internally consistent, rife with errors, and generally consists of copy/pastes of other works (which are also errant at best).  I understand that we are not here to interpret sources, but when they contradict one another so thoroughly, we should at least begin to question their reliability, right? --Tgeairn (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think any of that matters. Landmark should have its own article, because it exists currently and seems notable enough--apart from EST--to deserve to have an entry on Wikipedia. Even more so, EST needs its own article, because there are large numbers of people out there who remember hearing about EST in the 70s who may or may not have even heard of Landmark. DrSocPsych (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it est as "an organization" (which the article lead section currently states) or est as a variety of training seminars (the subject of the bulk of the article) that should have its own article? Erhard Seminars Training, Inc. never owned or developed the intellectual property and techniques upon which the est seminars (and later the Forum, Landmark Forum, and other licensed versions) were based. Certainly there is not enough information in the article to justify an article focused only on the company. It is also highly questionable whether there is enough information on the est seminars in its various licensed iterations to justify a standalone articles on each, given that many reliable sources point to the content as having the same core developed and refined by Erhard. &bull; Astynax talk 23:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat confused by your statement that Astynax continues to promote Landmark as a religion. First, the use of the word "promote" is almost exclusively used in what would be considered a "positive" sense, and Landmark among others does not think of itself as a religion, so that description isn't necessarily "positive." Also, as I think can be seen, the Human potential movement which Landmark is generally a part of is counted as a new religious movement, whose name strongly implies "religious" nature but only implicitly, and in fact est is listed in the List of new religious movements I helped put together based on the articles contained in encyclopedic sources on NRMs I found. So there is in my eyes no real reason for really questioning est's inclusion as a NRM. In response to if you have any sources available to help improve the article, or which might be useful in determining which article we should use as the primary article on this topic area, any input would be more than welcome. So far as I can tell, Landmark has pretty much said that they were initially using the est approach, although they have admitted to changing it subsequently (I'm not sure how much, or if they've ever specifically indicated in what ways). So it might be that something like Landmark Forum or some similar title might be the best main article for the topic of the seminars as a whole, with specific information on the various groups and companies related to it in articles on those topics. Maybe. This is a bit of an active controversy around here, and the topic area has recently been reviewed by ArbCom because of its contentiousness, but if you have any sources availableor other input which you think might be useful we would all welcome seeing them. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While Landmark's Forum may be an outgrowth of est, it is now a separate entity. Landmark has an identity in today's world, is an actual force in people's lives, currently, and deserves it's own Wikipedia article.  Est is a part of history and is now defunct.  It should have it's own Wikipedia article as an organization that had an impact on the culture in the '70's and '80's.  On another point, I can see why Tgeairn wants to count the Human Potential Movement as a 'new religious movement," because some players in this movement are "spiritual" in some aspect of their beliefs.  An individual involved in developing their potential might include a personal, spiritual awakening, but a greater spiritual awareness does not a Religion make, nor a "new religious movement."  According to Wkipedia's article about the "Human Potential Movement," many contributors to the Human Potential Movement are not religious, but come from the fields of Psychology, Education, the Arts and culture.  Notable contributors are Fritz Perls, Psychologist, Aldous Huxley, author, Viola Spolin, Theater innovator, Alan Watts, philosopher, Virginia Satir, educator, George Leonard and Michael Murphy, founders of Esalen, an educational retreat center.  My point is, the "Human Potential Movement" is encompassing of all human endeavors that are aimed at increasing our capacity, as humans to be fully what we can be, when we are functioning at our highest capacity.  Religion may be included in this effort, but not necessarily.  Therefore, to force est or Landmark into the limiting category of a 'new religious movement" is short-sighted, impolitic and is based on a particular bias or opinion that is not founded in fact.RecoveringAddict (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may be so blunt, I think the most shortsighted things I have seen here are (1) the claim that topics "deserve" articles, a determination which is based more on policy and guidelines than any sort of "right" to being covered, and (2) the rather obvious refusal to familiarize oneself with the topic of new religious movements in general, a topic which does and has had an article for some time, pre-eminently, of course, because the topic is one which has had several academic reference works dedicated to it, including those which were used in the construction of the List of new religious movements. There is also a rather obvious belief that categorization is "limiting", which is so far as I am aware rather contrary to policies and guidelines. There is nothing at Help:Category indicating that categories are in any way "limiting," just that they are a means of linking related articles. And, yes, a movement which has been specifically indicated as being a "new religious movement" can in the eyes of most independent observers be seen as being reasonably linked to that topic. John Carter (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I am not saying that Human Potential Movements are or should be treated as a New Religious Movements. It appears that others are arguing for that point of view, but I (and the reliable sources) do not find it.  An example of the difference is visible at Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements, where the definition favored by Barker is shown, followed by the definitions used by several other authors.  There is also extensive discussion at Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_2 and the RfC that followed that conversation.  Despite 's comments above, there is little foundation for the idea that "the Human potential movement which Landmark is generally a part of is counted as a new religious movement".
 * Astynax's promotion appears obvious to me. Do you need diffs? They have been promoting and arguing for this idea across multiple articles and talk pages for months. I don't know whether that promotion is intended to be "positive" or not, I had not considered it.  --Tgeairn (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * {e-c) Unfortunately, that is rather a separate and, date I say, irrelevant point, and, actually, irrelevant on two distinct points. First, this article is not about Landmark anything, but the Erhard Seminars Training subject. Please see the title at the top of the page. Also, please note that the entry in that list is in fact Erhard Seminars Training, not anything "Landmark." I would perhaps suggest, in light of the fact that discretionary sanctions on this topic have in fact already been authorized by the number of supports, even if they have not yet been implemented, that all individuals try to more closely and visibly adhere to the standard rules of conduct, including not engaging in prejudicial rephrasing of the statements of others. Honestly, the only thing that seems obvious to me is that you seem to have some difficulty in differentiating between this topic and Landmark. Also, please read the citation, #252, in the List of new religious movements, which cites several sources from several leading scholars which I think more than sufficiently establishes that est is in fact reasonably counted as a NRM. John Carter (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is rather disingenuous to use the fact that I am discussing this article and the Landmark company to then say that I "seem to have some difficulty in differentiating between this topic and Landmark", when the thread topic is specifically about the idea of merging this article into the Landmark Education article. Of course I don't have any difficulty differentiating at all, and I have clearly argued that they are distinct for quite some time.--Tgeairn (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And it is just as disingenous, if not more so, to ignore the fact that the article is not about Landmark. Please drop the stick, and try to deal with the topic of this section, which is a proposed merger of two articles, rather than continuing in indulging in rather obviously completely off-topic comments which are in no way related to the topic of this thread, which is a proposed merger, and is not in any way necessarily directly related to what seems to be your almost sole point of interest in this discussion, which, honestly, is so far as I can see completely unrelated to this article. John Carter (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, this article is not about Landmark. Therefore, I am opposed to a merge of any kind. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @ & : I asked above (at 22:36, 17 January) if you have any sources for the block of assertions made.  That block begins with "That is simply wrong" and ends with "is a fictional rationalization." John Carter then adds a little as well.  We have nothing in the article that even mentions "Transnational Education" or most of the rest of this.  Please provide reliable sources for these statements.
 * I also asked above (at 22:28, 17 January) for sources for the assertion "Landmark count est statistics in their own". Please provide a reliable source for that. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Landmark's own site in 1999 claimed "Since its introduction in 1985, almost 500,000 people have participated in The Landmark Forum", in 2000 claimed "Since its introduction in 1985, almost 500,000 people have participated in The Landmark Forum", in 2001 claimed "Since its introduction in 1985, almost 600,000 people have participated in The Landmark Forum", in 2002 claimed "Since its introduction in 1985, almost 600,000 people have participated in The Landmark Forum", etc. As Landmark didn't do business under that name until mid-1991, they are claiming figures for earlier programs. You can follow those numbers right through the present. Nothing wrong with that, except that it doesn't support the fictions that Landmark invented something new and that the Landmark Forum is not a continuation of Erhard's est and Forum. Landmark spokespeople have on at least a couple of occasions acknowledged in some form that the basis for the Forum is in est and the techniques they licensed from Erhard; e.g., a paper co-authored by Steve Zaffron includes, "Werner Erhard (the founder of the training program from which the Landmark Forum developed)"; the New York Magazine article states ""Landmark says Erhard has no role in its business, although their courses are based on his 'technology'—the structure, style, and system of beliefs he used in est and later in the Forum"; etc. That Landmark Forum is a continuation of est and Erhard's Forum is nothing novel to anyone who has checked the sources, and multiple other references have been provided in the Landmark-related articles and talk pages over the years. I'm not sure how quoting sources warrants the "advocacy" charge, and I'm sure that has nothing to do with the discussion here. &bull; Astynax talk 04:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When I said (above) that Landmark "deserves" to have an entry on Wikipedia, or that EST "needs" its own article, I was speaking normally/colloquially and not with the kind of precision I would use for a journal article (or even a Wikipedia article); I simply meant that each article independently and for different reasons clears the policy bar for sufficient notability. DrSocPsych (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
Parts of this article sounds like endorsements taken from a brochure for the seminars. There is no indication that there are any criticisms of the est seminars nor references to the fact that est has been parodied a number of times in popular culture. The est seminars were among the first self-help group seminars that have become quite common today. Thus, it has been referenced and parodies frequently. The article needs work on Neutral_point_of_view

In fact, the article EST and The Forum in popular culture does a better job of explaining the est seminars as an encyclopedia article should. For example, the Est and the Forum in popular culture article places the est seminars in context:


 * "est was a form of Large Group Awareness Training, and was part of the Human Potential Movement"

It describes the est seminars without as much heavy detail as this article and yet provides additional helpful detail:
 * "The program was very intensive: each day would contain 15–20 hours of instruction"

I added a link to the "Est and The Forum" article in the "See Also" section.

Although one of the books that is well known for an analysis & criticism of est is mentioned, there isn't really anything about the book or any other criticism in this article. The book is significant enough that there's an entire Wikipedia article about the book. I added a cross-reference to the article on the book. This is just a minimum indication of what else is out there. There maybe other articles in Wikipedia, and certainly other material outside of it. In a quick search I found one right away: http://skepdic.com/landmark.html

Several quotes from Jonathan Moreno's book that are complimentary of of est are included. I suspect there's more to Moreno's discussion of est than this praise. This article needs more work. Ileanadu (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are quite right. This is a biased article all the way through. With respect to the Est/Erhard/Landmark articles, the Wikipedia system is currently protecting COI editors and blocking neutral ones, so I fear it will take some time before somebody has found enough courage to clean up the mess. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have found this on other Wikipedia article pages also. In a number of cases (mostly "new religious movements" or similar groups) the article seems to be policed by adherents of the particular group, who very gradually delete or obscure almost all the criticism and pad it with material that sounds like it comes directly from the group's literature. I realize there is a structural problem with Wikipedia in this regard, but is there some mechanism at least to get neutral Wikipedia editors involved to try to maintain a more NPOV article? DrSocPsych (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I don't think there is such a mysterious and beneficial mechanism. The best way forward is to agree upon a fixed set of reliable and notable sources that are, as such, not in doubt. Those sources should provide both the facts and the framework. But even that will be impracticable, I fear. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Look for example here. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that you didn't understand my question. If the most egregious violators of NPOV and Conflict of Interest can't be barred from editing certain articles, can we at least get some uninvolved and presumably neutral editors to join us in order to have more reasonable people editing a particular article instead of mostly adherents of the group in question? DrSocPsych (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How does one go about doing that on Wikipedia? DrSocPsych (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am afraid there is no answer that will satisfy you and me. Most people prefer doing the things they like, instead of fighting the dragon. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You and I agree that the source you mentioned is not very reliable, and in any case, is not representative of the majority of what's been published regarding who Erhard was. Other neutral people would likely agree. Some of them might be willing to spend a little time correcting this or other similar articles out of a sense of indignance that even a small part of an important encyclopedia is being hijacked and its objectivity diminished. DrSocPsych (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)