Talk:Werner Erhard/Archive 1

NPOV
The description of the reasoning behind WE's founding of the Hunger Project contained a lot of bias for him. I haven't gone through the rest of the entry this though, just fixed what I saw in the Hunger Project section.

This article only cites one book, and one which is obviously negatively slanted against WE. I have not much experience or knowledge of WE and have no strong feelings either way about the man or his work, as I don't have enough information. But whoever wrote or edited this article should realize its obvious bias gives it a specious air.

- Uh, yeah. I'm not sure "obviously negatively slanted" really captures it. How about hatchet job? I'm attempting to whittle away at some of the POV weasel words and editorializing, but there is a lot to work down. Hope others will help. Ratagonia 03:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

- Sure. I should be able to look at it next week some. FreedomByDesign 00:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(another bystander)
I have to note, as a rigorously trained sociologist and anthropologist with extensive experience in the area of what is referred to as "Transformation," that this page has a high level of editorializing in its authorship and should be viewed as such. One of the main authors of the work cites as his "Theme" as "pan-Oceanick Pedantry, spiced with opinion and leavened with alleged facts." As such, any and all information on this page would likely be best taken in in combination with other, diverse and verified sources. Having not yet conducted research on Erhard, I'll leave my commentary here for now.

Under 'Legal Strife'
The matters regarding the IRS settlement need to remain as 'alleged' until some solid evidence can be produced. It is insufficient to post a source as biased as www.wernererhard.com.


 * Here's a story from Time Magazine that references the settlement: The Best Of Est? by Charlotte Faltermayer. I also found a Findlaw entry for the case of Erhard v IRS, though I am not sure if this was the final ruling or one that was later appealed. --Zippy 23:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two separate issues with the IRS (at least): 1) he was awarded $200,000 for wrongful disclosure, 2) he was held liable for civil tax evasion (a sham transaction) and such verdict was upheld by the appeals court. Sm1969 21:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources for above claims. Yours, Smeelgova 21:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC).

The section regarding Ellen Erhard v. Werner Erhard has an inaccurate citation. Citation for this goes to Ellen Erhard V. IRS. This is a bad citation and should be deleted.


 * Well, one way you can do it is look at the dates on the items. The court case for the sham transactions was argued and decided in 1994 and 1995, respectively.  The $200,000 was decided as a verdict in 1996 Los Angeles Daily News.  You can contact the Los Angeles Daily News for verification.  It should also be in Lexis-Nexis from that date.  Here's another link:  Werner Erhard and $200,000.

Sm1969 05:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Names and aliases
I have no particular knowledge of this subject, but it seemed to me that "June Bryde" (Rosenberg's 2nd wife) would likely be an alias; a play on the phrase "June bride" (a woman marrying in June; Spring in the Northern hemisphere). I may be wrong but it does fit with his alias "Jack Frost" (the mythical character of coming Winter, transformed by Spring!) and his alias "Curt Von Savage" (perhaps marriage to the "Bryde" tamed the savage?). They transformed themselves into Werner and Ellen Erhard. Design 11:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

June Bryde is at the least the official alias, as stated in Bartley (the authorized/favorable biography).Ratagonia 03:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Pulling the Strings"
After following a link from another website to this one, it found this heading to be completely inflammatory as it was on the other site. To use a quote from a magazine article, of an electronics engineer who was giving HIS opinion, as a heading in an encyclopedia seems COMPLETELY out of line. This is not a gossip magazine and is NOT the place for sensationalism in any form, not to mention that this was someone's opinion now showing up in an encyclopedia THIRD hand.

- Absolutely. This is an example of a specious source. There is no reason to believe that the source is at all credible. I will remove it. Ratagonia 01:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

under "Family"
I removed the reference to WE's campaign contributions under the family section. Reasons: a. not relevant; b. the way it was written, it made it sound sleazy, like the contributions were funneled through WEA. One lists one's employer on campaign contribution forms, that's all. He also gave money to John McCain and (oh my gosh), a Democrat! Not relevant, seemed like it was put in there to appear sleazy/POV. Ratagonia 02:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed a copyrighted photo of Harry Rosenberg that is the exact same one you find on the Landmark Education website. See: http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_images.jsp?top=21&mid=166&siteObjectID=330. I seriously doubt that they gave permission to have that photo up in this article. According to Wikipedia, content from other sites that is posted without persmission should be deleted. Also I removed a link to a private address of a private person. Werner Erhards' mother or not. It is inappropriate to link to a person's home address from a wikipedia article. These should be removed. Buddysystem 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do keep any off any materials that have a copyright. They could be linked to if they are relevant and important. FreedomByDesign 00:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no home address listed on that other site, it is an article where she is interviewed. And the Rosenberg picture is part of a publicity press packet, explicitly for such a purpose.  Smee 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

NPOV rewrite project
I'm working on boldly rewriting the entire article for appropriate to a Living Person Biography. Since I will be removing much of the negative point of view material, someone who is Werner-phobic might want to start a "Werner Erhard Controversy" page. Should we discuss every little thing? Read the WP:LIVING article and I think you will agree that that guideline was set up to avoid pages like this.

I will be converting many of the references to the Slag-fest bio to the earlier, authoratative and authorized bio by Bartley.

Dec 20th changes, lead paragraph, Celebrity Bio Box: removed weasel words. Also, removed as profession, car and encyclopedia salesmans (while true and perhaps interesting, Werner is not biographied because he sold cars). Removed Jack Frost alias (one's nom-to-salesman 45 years ago is hardly relevant to the Wiki); and removed the reference to his bigamous marraige name (not really relevant, and will be covered later under that section). Etc. Again, if you have objections, please read WP:Living, or start a "Controversy Page". I realize Werner is a controversial figure, but HIS page in the Wiki is not the appropriate place to slag him heavily.

And yes, my spelling is better on the actual page, than on the talk page. Ratagonia 17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All of the information provided is from reputable sources. This conforms to Wikipedia policy as it is highly sourced/cited, and factually accurate.  Smeelgova 00:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
 * I'm sorry. How does that apply to the edits in question.  No doubt about the citations, etc.  The question is the appropriateness to a living person biography, and usage of the English Language.  Any particular removed info you can make a good case for, please do.  Please review.  Thanks.  Ratagonia 01:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have changed the syntax in the intro back to your version. But I fail to see how anything that is factually accurate and cited by reputable sources violates WP:Living.  Please explain.  Smeelgova 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
 * You mean in the whole article, or just in the few changes of today? This article is among the worst I have seen on the Wiki, and a rewrite will require deleting sourced, accurate statements to make it into a Living Person Bio of encyclopedic voice.  Not everything about Werner for which a citation can be found on the internet or in print deserves to be in his Wikibio.  There are two long biographies (one pro, one anti) and Stacks of material out there.
 * Specific changes: 1. Philly: his birth location is given in the Celebrity Bio Box right next door, so while repeating the date I find acceptable, I don't find repeating the city of birth as helpful; 2. 'established' might not be the best word, 'created and presented' might be a better choice. He also created the material from which the current day Landmark Forum was developed, so thus it is appropriate to list that, too; 3. 'sold' is a negPOV weasel word.  While true, we do not say that Harvard University sells course, we say they offer, or present courses, just as est, WEA and Landmark do. 4. Occupations: as in any bio, we should list the occupations that make the subject biography-worthy, not everything they did. While factually true, the listing his occupation as a used car salesman has a negative connotation.  I cut the list where his Transformational Career began, as an instructor for Mind Dynamics. 5. Name Changes/Aliases: since Werner does not use his birthname, this section might be appropriate.  But I think it should be deleted entirely.  All the names are, or will be, covered elsewhere in the article.  Listing his 'car salesman" tradename seems kind of silly.  His hide-out bigamous marriage name is covered under marriages/family.  Werner Spits is covered under the last bit about living in the Cayman Islands.  Overall, I find that this section has a negative POV and adds nothing to the article.
 * You know, WRITING an article, including a biography, including a wiki bio involves making editorial decisions about what material is and is not appropriate. This article in particular is a VERY BAD ARTICLE and is very far from the wiki standard for a bio of a living person.  Rather than defending every tiny datum in the article, and requiring my intensive justification (and possible arbitrator involvement) to bring this bio around to a 'reasonable' level, I entreat you to collaborate and help bring this article up to snuff.
 * Despite my affection for Werner, I am trying to rewrite the article as an uninterested observor. I have ordered the cited books that I do not already have so I can read up on the negative point of view. And, for each editorial decision, I ask myself: 'if this was the bio of living person X', what is appropriate to an encyclopedic article and what is not.  Currently the article is jammed full of negative material, and negative wording on neutral material.  Thus the effort. Ratagonia 04:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and: "circa 1970's" is a double ambiguation. It is either 1970's or circa 1975 (for example), but both has a confusing effect on the reader, thus producing a negative effect.  Ratagonia 04:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * These will be very controversial issues to go through. Why don't we try to deal with these changes one at a time, instead of wholesale?  There are other individuals who have added sourced citations of factual material to this article over the years who do not want to see it changed - or at the very least not changed very quickly.  Smeelgova 04:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

I, for one, am totally in favor of rewriting this article to be from a more neutral point of view. I read the WP:LIVING article and I think that there is definitely work to be done to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards.Saladdays 23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, so long as we can include material from secondary sources in reputable citation formatting. Smeelgova 23:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Instructor, Mind Dynamics
As much as it pains me to agree with Smeelgova, I will, kind of. Werner's brief stint at Mind Dynamics was important to the development of est, according to Bartley. Seems like an appropriate entry under occupations, but not in the BLP box, which should list only the occupations for which the person is NOTABLE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ratagonia (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
 * He was notable in that regard. His stint in Mind Dynamics influenced most other forms of large group awareness training...  Smee 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Huh? "His stint..." - please explain. Seems like Mind Dynamics influenced est, est influenced other LGAT programs, but is there some specific connection between Werner's Mind Dynamics stint and other LGATs that remains hidden from me?  Citation? Ratagonia 19:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a notable job that he held, and has been cited itself in other secondary source material. There is no reason not to include it, other than an attempt at whitewashing.  It does not take up much space at all in the article.  Thanks.  Smee 20:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Please stop removing this occupation from the infobox. Thanks.  Smee 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
 * According to Bartley there were many things that influenced his creating of est, such as the study of Zen, Dale Carnegie and others. His association with Mind Dynamics is mentioned later in the article under influences and that seems like an appropriate place for it.  To list it as the first entry in the info box as his career is misleading and gives undue importance to what we all agree was a "brief stint" in his career history.Saladdays 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If he had other "stints" of careers, they could be listed in the infobox as well. However from other sources it does seem that this was a formative period.  If not for association with this group, it is unlikely he would have gotten involved in Large Group Awareness Training.  Smee 23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Linking to a private person's address
Smeelgova and anyone else editing on this article, I cannot think of any reason for a link to the address of a private and apparently living person in an encyclopedia article. Just because it is available via voter registration information doesn't justify putting it in an encyclopedia article. I am removing it until someone editing this article can provide a valid justification that suits encyclopedic standards. Buddysystem 20:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not violate No Personal Attacks, especially when creating subject headings on talk pages. Like WP:NPA says:  Comment on content, not the contributor.  At any rate, the information is now in a citation at the bottom of the article, as opposed to a link, this is a fair compromise.  I have removed the other link to a personal website.  The information is by Federal Law publicly available from the Federal Election Commission.  Smee 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for pointing out the policy and for removing the link. I did not intend a personal attack. Buddysystem 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Steven Pressman's Book Outrageous Betrayal
I have a question about this often cited refernce in this article. I've got a copy of this book and as I look at it, I cannot find a single citation of where any of the information in the book comes from. While it appears the author had access to many of the people around Werner Erhard, why are there not citations like you find in other non-fiction books? If we are trying to write as factual an article as possible, should we be concerned about using this reference so heavily? What do other people editing this article think about this?Buddysystem 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Certainly this book could never have been written without the cooperation of scores of individuals who provided me with their candid recollections and revealing records of their dealings over the years with Erhard. A note is in order here about my use of quoted conversations throughout the book. In some cases, conversations have been recounted based on the recollections of participants or witnesses. In other instances, I hvae relied on previously published accounts, court transcripts, depositions, and other documents in which various individuals have recounted earlier conversations. Many of hte sources I relied on for information are named throughout the book; many others are not. They all deserve equally my thanks for contributing to this disturbing story of Erhard and the movement he created. It should also be noted that Pressman's professional background is that of a journalist/author, specializing in the field of litigation and libel law. See for example his article Libel Law in the United States. So I would imagine he had heavily researched his sources before publication. Smee 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The author most likely did not cite specific individuals interviewed, in order to protect them from potential harassment, from other companies/individuals associated with/related to the material included/discussed in the book... Smee 20:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Pure speculation. Please refrain from such slander even a talk page. Much of the information cited can be found in Bartley's 'authorized' bio, which precedes Pressman and would be a better source (for a BPL, especially). Working on converting refs to Bartley where appropriate in the process of re-writing this page. Ratagonia 21:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not pure speculation. If you have a copy of the book, read the acknowledgements section where this is discussed.  The Bartley book is a bit more biased towards the subject matter, however if you can provide citations for the same material, it would be preferable to simply add them in addition to existing citations.  Smee 21:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
 * It may be in the book somewhere, but it is not in the acknowledgements section. No mention of anything like this.  No mention of why the book has no footnotes.  But, it is not a scholarly work, thus is not required to have footnotes.  In many cases, the 'footnote' information is stated in the text. Ratagonia 23:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. But see last page of acknowledgement section, page 279.  Smee 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I can see where one could read something like that in, but it is not there, to the NPOV reader. Truthfully, I am surprised since the few sections of the book I have read are rather less gentile. Ratagonia 00:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the quote from the Acknowledgement section, Outrageous Betrayal, Steven Pressman, pg. 279. :


 * No doubt, he had good reasons for doing it the way he did. No quibble. It is a popular book, not a scholarly work. But your statement: "The author most likely did not cite specific individuals interviewed, in order to protect them from potential harassment, from other companies/individuals associated with/related to the material included/discussed in the book... Smee 20:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)." while perhaps true, is not supported by the acknowlegement, including the part you quoted.  Thus, my claim that it is pure speculation on your part, unless you have a source that supports your interpretation (which the acknowledgement section does not). (It is very possible to put too great an emphasis on this very small point). Ratagonia 07:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I still have a question about how many times this pressman book is used as a reference. It is used as a reference 16 times out of 63 cited references. That is 25% of the articles sources. There are two other books that are germaine to this article. One by Jane Self "60 Minutes and the Assasination of Werner Erhard' and William Bartley's "Werner Erhard: the transformation of a man: the founding of est." and I think they have one citation between them. There is an obvious dilema as the Pressman book and the other two books hold opposing view points which could be challenging when agreeing on what to include.  However given this article has been marked as disputed, I think we need to really look at this.

I think that this is especially important at the moment since much of the present text of the article is directly quoted from the Pressman book. What can we do to balance out our sources here? Does anyone have access to the other books? Buddysystem 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Salary and Net Worth
Salary and Net Worth are good things to report in a BPL when they are reported by a reputable source (such as the Forbes annual list of richest people, which again is speculative). However, taking assorted information from various sources and ginning up an estimate of the subjects net worth or salary is at *best* highly speculative and definitely falls into the category of "original research", and has no place in a wiki article, especially a BPL. You COULD create a separate wiki article "Speculation of WE's Salary and Net Worth" if you want, but I doubt it would past muster. Ratagonia 21:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. It would be interesting to find more about this in reputable sources at a later point in time.  Smee 20:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

A few changes
"Successive" has a specific legal meaning that may or may not apply. Just saying "Organizations" is clearer and technically correct (2 places).

"Sold etc.", while true, is inappropriate in this place. Landmark Education currently offers Erhard-material based programs. The sale of the intellectual property to Landmark is covered elsewhere in the article.

"Jack Frost" was used as a tradename. An alias is a name used to mislead the public. "Jack Frost" was just a sales gimmick (see Bartley p 42/43). Ratagonia 07:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Name changes" does not need a leading derogatory editorial preface. name changes can stand on their own. Ratagonia 07:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am fine with these changes. It is interesting to note the sheer number of names that both the associated company(s) and the individual have run through over the years... Smee 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)