Talk:Werner Erhard/Archive 2

Name Changes Section
I don't see the need for a separate section on this topic, as long as the text below is not mauled. I think the article makes the one actual name change quite clear. Let's leave the references to actual "name changes". Making editorial comment inside the text of the article is childish. As far as I can tell, in my readings over the last five months, John Paul (Jack) Rosenberg legally changed his name once to Werner Erhard. In reading the article by Vanessa Grigoriadis she states that Werner Erhard "apparently" is now going by "Werner Spits". I long ago read some obscure reference to this coming off a restaurant check picked up by someone. This is hardly good sourcing of a "name change". Who's to say it wasn't an amusing moment between and man and his female companion? It DOES NOT prove a name change. Likewise, if someone can find an actual reference to the claim of a name change to Von Savage, wonderful. Until that time please leave these references out. They are unfounded.
 * I preferred Pendant's edits. Beyond that, you know more about Erhard's personal life than I do. I'd like to know where you get your information. I think it would help us all with the editing process. I don't see why the inclusion of name-changes really seems to bother you. What's there in that space you've created? Pax Arcane (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What I know about Erhard's personal life I got from reading this article and all it's iterations and it's references for 5 months. What has seemed well-sourced is very little and I do my best to keep this page from being a gossip column or worse.  Concommitantly, I know very little about Erhard's personal life. I find no sourced reference to a "name change" to anything like "Von Savage" nor to "Werner Spits", though at one time someone upon editting this article put some reference in about someone referring to, no lie, a check from a restaurant.  Sorry, but I find that kind of thing spurious.  What bothers me about a section on "name change" is that there is only one "name change", it is unnecessary and therefore unencyclopedic.  Why do you "like it better" than not?  What "space" are you talking about?  I do hope this fills you in on some of the history of this article and how the editting process works.--Ftord1960 01:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more thorough, Pendant's edits. I've watched the history of the article as well. I can't see what exists as the article now something to be called a "gossip page." It's an accurate BLP who was a controversial and very public individual. I can't see why anyone would want to deny that. A person steps into the limelight...anyway, I've discussed this fully before. I have some comments at the bottom of the page that you didn't directly address. If there was the work you claim in prisons and starvation, by all means, edit it in. It would improve the article. The Alias is a tree you're staring at...Erhard's life is a very colorful forest that he planted and now owns. The "space" refers to that place in your mind. Best wishes, and good luck with editing. If you could substatiate your claims and add them, that would be great. Pax Arcane 01:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, more Pax in this Pax. Thank you.  What's thorough about an unnecessary section about a "name change"?  The "tree" is written about clearly and boldly in the next paragraph?  I won't argue that there was much that was controversial in the coverage of Erhard and perhaps in the man.  Accurate?  Accurate.  It's hard to know.  What I'm concerned about is the writing be sourced and cover the works of the person to a greater extent than the controversy.  I will put some time in here to document the work in prisons and in alleviating starvation.  Some of that's been in and taken out many times.  I can see, how, I too, have put too much focus on the battle, and lost some of the proper focus. Thanks for the fresh outlook. --Ftord1960 02:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since nobody can prevent the mauling (refactoring) of an article, the need for a section on name-changes and aliases and a pattern of deception and disguise and identity-flight becomes clear in a biographical article where the subject has used multiple handles. -- The article does not make "the one actual name change quite clear". We have no precise date or any reference to legal documentation attesting any formal change of name -- just a vague urban legend about an in-flight magazine. On the other hand, someone (Pressman?) has the ability to track down a marriage-license and/or a registry-entry attesting a marriage involving someone presenting himself as Curt Wilhelm VonSavage on the precise date of 1960-03-29. For that we have a published source with verifiable pointers to time, place, and officiating minister's church. Clearer than that name-change I have yet to see. If we do indeed know that Rosenberg "legally changed his name", then let's see the evidence -- with appropriate detail and sourcing, of course -- in the article-space. Until we see such evidence we have no proof that an official change of name took place, and it would seem more appropriate to change the title of our article to John Paul Rosenberg, treating "Werner Hans Erhard" as yet another in a long string of noms de guerre. -- I too disapprove of making unnecessary editorial comment in the text of an article. But the need for good sources and verifiable citations makes apparent attempts to suppress information within Wikipedia via  OTRS ticket 2007051510011812  part of the story in itself: and that story belongs in Wikipedia, clearly identified and explained in such a manner that readers may form their own opinions of the processes at work. -- The claim that Vanessa Grigoriadis states 'that Werner Erhard "apparently" is now going by "Werner Spits"' lacks justification from the archived text at http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/4932/index3.html, which reads: "Changing his surname yet again -- he goes by Werner Spits -- Erhard has joined an eating club [...]." (Retrieved 2007-12-01). -- The published source mave have its facts wrong, but it has nevertheless published the information in unambiguous wise, and Wikipedians can cite it as such. If the published statements of the  New York Magazine seem at variance with a claim that someone "long ago read some obscure reference to this coming off a restaurant check picked up by someone", then let's see the verifiable sourcing of that counter-evidence. Until we do, the "Werner Spits" alias stands as a documented phenomenon. Of course, the Vanessa Grigoriadis article does not prove a (formal) name-change. But at least it provides citable information on the matter, referenceable and usable in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Unreferenced speculation as to inaccuracy cannot of itself provide grounds for trumping accurate quotations from reliable sources. Let's restore this information. -- Pedant17 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Kindred Embraced, hi, welcome to Wiki. It isn't policy to edit another person's comments unless you are straight archiving them. I've noticed you've done two edits to Ftord1960's comments. Please refrain from doing so and contribute with your own comments, unless we have a case of someone being a meatpuppet here, which is another matter entirely. Unless Ftord1960 objects, I'm assuming he allowed you to edit his comments. Please refrain. THANKS! -- Pax Arcane  00:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello kindred embraced. Welcome to a site beseiged by a bully. I'm going to refrain from the above's comments from now on, except when he's roughing up a newcomer. I'm not familiar with a policy about editting another's contributions. For bettter or worse, my experience has been that it's all fair game. I appreciated your EDITORIAL contributions, and would hope that someone like Pax Arcane would follow your lead. Welcome. Let's try to keep an editorial demeanor, O.K.? --Ftord1960 (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ftord1960 is resorting to name-calling because he has nothing better to do working at LE headquarters and often resorts to acting like a child when he can't get his way, often pulling a jack-move like an OTRS ticket when people get too close to the truth concerning his "source," his "leader." He often tries to speak for other people besides himself, and is often called on it. His job editing Wiki is to make Werner look as good as possible, as he edits nothing else. Shame, Ford, Shame, you know your name. ;) -- Pax Arcane  02:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "roughing up newcomers" That's rich. You've oft referred to me as a newcomer. Can you back up your statements Ftord, or is this just your mouth moving for no particular reason, slinging allegations and accusations for kicks? -- Pax Arcane  03:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, the Talk page guidelines discuss the (rare) cases in which one may edit others' text on a Talk-page. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Saladdays, I specifically asked you to read
This will be my final warning asking you to read WP:BLP. I have made the points in discussions below that you don't seem to grasp. Per your requests for me to read something I've already explained to you, I will quote WP:BLP- ''Well known public figures: In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.'' I firmly and respectfully ask you to read before you explain to me what I've known for over a decade without the need for you to inform me of guidelines I've been awake of pre-Wiki. READ. Please. Do not cherry pick. Are we clear on this? I have made this as clear as possible by explaining what you keep referring me to, your rationale is faulty in the presence of WIKI informational guidelines. Thanks and good luck. Respectfully-- Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC) This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Calling someone a cult leader, using sourcing that is questionable, and justifying it with your opinion that "Public figures are not afforded the same privacy citizens are." does not lead me to believe that you are aiming for a neutral point of view and certainly not the conservative one that Wikipedia Policy requires.--Saladdays 05:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, there is no need to be rude. The following is from the beginning of the WP:BLP policy which I referred readers to in my edit summary:
 * I'm not being rude. You don't cherry pick the document, you take it as a whole, and apply the rules as they apply to celebrities. It isn't my opinion that "public citizens are not provided the same privacy citizens are." In journalistic terms, "public persons" are those that have thrust themselves in the limelight. Look, I'm tired of doing the critical thinking on this FOR you. Get a book. Read it. Read WP:BLP and ask questions. God...lol. Good luck. You need it. I don't think you understand that wiki document and I'm not wasting my time assuming you have the capcity to, as you've repeatedly shown you do not. Take yourself off the article. Like I said, you read the FIRST part and didn't bother with the rest of WP:BLP. Irresponsible. Recuse yourself. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The sourcing of the designation of "cult-leader" in the article traces the use of the word "cult' in a sociological sense to the careful and balanced contemporary work of Tipton, published by a respectable university press. In what way can we brand this particular sourcing as "questionable"? Do we have alternative sources of equal merit that suggest that Erhard did not function as a "leader" in  est? -- Pedant17 04:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would imagine "cult leader," is more apt and neutral than "God," or "the one who sent him," or "the Source," if we're aiming for accuracy and neutrality. Pendant, thanks for reading. Others should also read, discuss, and follow your example. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 11:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for removal of giant portions of text
Salad, can you provide more of a rationale for deleting large portions of cited information so the article reads to be biased positively to Erhard. The one you supplied is insufficient. He is a controversial figure and his early days that he has been, unfortunately, unable to erase are important to painting an accurate portrayal of Erhard. Please respond. Respectfully, Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a biography of a living person, and within WIkipedia's guidelines, it should be be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Articles should not be sensationalist or spread titillating claims about people's lives. see WP:BLP Just because those claims appeared in print 20 years ago does not make them accurate or verifiable and so I don't believe that they are appropriate for a biography. And just because something has been quoted many times, it doesn't make it accurate, just look at the intelligence reports for weapons of mass destruction.--Saladdays 19:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Public figures are not afforded the same privacy citizens (that do not thrust themselves into the limelight) are. If the subject has gone to great pains to draw the spotlight to himself/herself and it has been written publicly, I doubt the above applies. Erhard was on 'The Tonight Show.' We're writing facts here and the facts have been documented multiple times. I find your rationale and red herring of Iraq WMD to be a poor rationale. His address and phone number are not listed. I think he's probably doing just fine abroad and would thank you for your concern. Examine journalist guidelines and media law, as they most certainly apply here. If Erhard wanted to be low-key, he would have been so as Jack Rosenberg. This is not the life he decided to choose for himself, however. He chose celebrity status and has publicly said things that probably make him libel-proof. I have no interest in anything but balanced truth and an avoidance of whitewashing. I doubt I find much disagreement with anything I've written above. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum- I think you are using a very subjective rational here. I think the WP:LPB is asking us as editors to have some respect even compassion for the actual people that are the subjects of these articles. Tabloid type accusations do hurt people famous or not.Ebay3 15:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * These are not tabloid accusations. These are his recorded actions and behaviors. Rationale is not subjective, in fact it is objective, per the term "journalistic objectivity." Please study media law and journalistic ethics. You will find more guidance there. I am not interested in what you "think" WP:LPB is. I am interested in providing a factual article. Reference what I wrote above earlier and take a step back. If your compassion of Erhard is preventing you from being objective, you may need to recuse yourself from editing this article and the discussion in general. Thanks! Good luck! Respectfully- Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 17:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Salad--You read the first paragraph of WP:BLP and left it at that. This is a sign of poor editorial capacity and intent, as well as a lack of insight and grasp of editing. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Family Section Rewrite
I support Saladdays work on making sense of the Family section. Smee - please leave him some space to work on this. The current structure and layout is very confusing, very bad writing. Let's get some order into this article. Saladdays - go for it. Don't let Smee bully you. Adhere to Wiki policy, work carefully, and we can bring this article out of the murk. When Smee cites policy, go look at the policy and see if it applies - sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. Ratagonia 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC) I just combined the "Family Chart" into the "Family section", added a few commas, removed "current" from Harry Rosenberg's occupation, and added Nathan Rosenberg's occupation.Roccoconon 18:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I request that you please stop the personal attacks. As per WP:NPA, comment on content, not on contributors.  (Emphasis in original policy).  Smee 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
 * commenting on your contributions, and yes it was a little harsh. Good to see everyone working together. Ratagonia 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - This section and the Career section are very unclear and vague.  It takes major scrolling down the page to get to any real information on this man's career.  I think that simplifying and clarifying these sections will go a long way to making this a better Biography page. I propose that Family informaton go under the family heading and that an outline of the major career events go in the Career section. Do other editors have thoughts on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saladdays (talk • contribs).
 * It proceeds fine in a chronological order. However, where there are other more detailed existing articles like EST and WEA, the bulk of that text pertaining to those groups should be summarizing more succinctly, with a reference statin "see more details" at those articles.  I will do this when I get a chance.  Thanks.  Smee 18:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
 * This is not in line with the organizational structure of the article. Smee 18:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't understand. I made the edit for the exact purpose of bringing a clear structure to the article. What purpose do you think keeping the "Family Chart" outside the "Family" section serves. Isn't it easier for people to find information on Family if it's all in one section? Roccoconon 18:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is best to keep the paragraph format and the chart format in different places for the moment. I will work on creating a graphical version which may be inputted within the section.  Thanks.  Smee 18:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I asked for a reason and all you said was "It is best". Why is it best? Unless you have a good reason, I'd like to start to bring some organization to this unwieldy article. Roccoconon 18:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it will not look good to introduce it, in the current state, into a paragraph format. When I have reformatted the chart I will reinsert.  Smee 18:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The rodovid family tree you posted is great, but I'm going to change the link to say "Family Tree" instead of "Werner Erhard". We can probably also now delete some of this Family information since it's much more elegantly represented in the tree. Roccoconon 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't Wikipedia a place where everyone get's to edit, Smee? Please, Let someone else have a voice once in a while.

Mayo615 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)mayo615Mayo615 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC) The San Jose Mercury News, San Francisco Chronicle, and the CBS 60 Minutes documentary report on Mr. Rosenberg should all be rich citation sources for further edits and amendments to discussion of his family. I lived through this era in San Francisco, and was close to a number of people who were highly placed in the EST organization, though never personally took the "training" or participated in their activities. The current article on Werner Erhard, is IMHO, very neutral and bland. Much more factual information should be included that frankly is not terribly flattering toward Mr. Rosenberg.
 * I'd like to see some different organization to this article too! Putting all the Family info together seems like a good and logical start.  Thanks for taking that on, Roccoconon.Saladdays 18:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Buddysystem's changes

 * Buddysystem: Please discuss individual changes you wish to make, here on the talk page.  The material in the article has been highly sourced/cited and in place for quite some time now.  Thank you for your time.  Smee 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't agree with you Smee. There are several editors who have been trying to make changes to this page and you are the only one reverting them back to your versions. That doesn't seem like consensus to me. Buddysystem, your attempts at organization are helpful. I am trying to make similar changes to the structure of the article to make it overall more NPOV.  Let's make changes and support each other's work, not debate every individual change.--Saladdays 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, let us debate these changes on the talk page in the polite spirit of debate, discussion and inquiry. The article had been stable in its present format for a while now.  Thank you for your time.  Yours, Smee 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
 * May I suggest, Assume Good Faith. WP:AGF  In this context, what I mean is, assume that the reviser is trying to improve the article, and find a version that will satisfy both persons.  BUILD on the work of others.  Work together.  This is a collaboration, not a contest. Ratagonia 05:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If anything, the obligation is on the reverter to clearly state why the reversion is necessary. Wiki encourages contribution, and discourages reversion. Ratagonia 05:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BUILD on the work of others. Work together. This is a collaboration, not a contest. How true, and yet certain others seem not to respect the much prior work done by many many other editors in the past on this article...  This goes both ways...  Thanks.  Smee 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Sources for Information in this Article
Does anyone know of sources for the following claims in this article? Roccoconon 17:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Joan Rosenberg is Vice President for the Centers Division of Landmark Education
 * Art Schreiber is Werner Erhard's private attorney (the source only shows Schreiber to be Landmark Education's general counsel, not Erhard's, and this section is for ties between Landmark and Erhard.)
 * See the informative book: OUTRAGEOUS BETRAYAL, by Steven Pressman.  Thanks.  Smee 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
 * As discussed before in this talk page, there is opinion that the Pressman book is not the best source of information, as it doesn't cite its sources very well and in many cases not at all. There is an earlier and very well referenced biography by Bartley that has well documented information.  It would be good to get more references from that book onto this article.Saladdays 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Erhard/Hubbard Friendship
Smee, please stop replacing information that is deleted because it is not sourced. Wikipedia [Wikipedia:Citing_sources] clearly states," All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged." When something has been removed due to poor sourcing, please make the case for replacing the information as well as the source and come to some agreement instead of unilaterally putting the information back on the article. I saw on your profile that you are an inclusionist, but Wikipedia has different standards when it comes to living people's biographies.

Citing an entire book for a claim that Erhard and Hubbard had a friendship is not sufficient. You must provide a primary source with a page number and quote. Roccoconon 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Pendant17--excellent work on your research citations. As of this reading, I cannot find flaw with them, but I will continue to comb them over. The wording and prose remain tight and the article now provides a wealth of information with non-corporate, third-party citations. Remember guys, let's not have an edit-war here. The facts are the facts and add to what was once a bland/faceless article. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Great work on the article, guys! Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The page number and quote are provided. Please keep your comments to content, not contributors.  Thanks.  Smee 19:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The page number is given as is the quote attributed to Erhard: "[Hubbard was the] greatest philosopher of the twentieth Century". No quote is given to justify the claim that the two were friends...it's just sitting out there. They may have, in fact, been friends (I don't know), but we need some sort of source, preferably a primary one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roccoconon (talk • contribs).
 * Fine. I will adjust accordingly.  Smee 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Cleaning Up the Structure of this Biography
As the top of the article notes, this article is probably in need of cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please read Wikipedia's Style Guide for Biographies. I propose the following structure for this biography:


 * 1) Intro Paragraph
 * 2) Aliases
 * 3) Early Life (inc. Education)
 * 4) From Philadelphia to California
 * 5) est: Erhard Seminars Training (1971 - 1981)
 * 6) The Hunger Project (1977 - )
 * 7) Werner Erhard and Associates & The Forum (1981 - 1991)
 * 8) Into Exhile (1991 - Present)
 * 9) Family
 * 10) Influences (to include New Age, Zen Buddhism, Scientology, etc.)
 * 11) Legal Issues
 * 12) Related Organizations (including Landmark Education, Hunger Project, Excellerated Business Schools, etc.)
 * 13) Awards (can probably be incorporated into biographical periods above)
 * 14) See also (to include biographies, documentaries, fictional depictions)

My hope is that bringing some structure to this article will make it easier for people to find the information they are looking for. My inspiration was the bio of George Washington: intro, names, bio, personal, controversies, see also. Feel free to comment/edit on this structure. When there is a semblance of consensus, I will make the changes. Roccoconon 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. COULD put the 'influences' section before 'est'. Or could leave it for later, after 'exile', but before family.  Ratagonia 04:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the sections EST, Hunger Project, WEA, Forum, could all be shortened with references left for the reader to the other existing articles, in a "For more details, see.." format... Smee 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Smee makes an excellent point. There is no need to explain the Hunger Project, est, WEA, or any other organizations related to Erhard. They have (or can have) their own Wikipedia entries. Roccoconon 04:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I am saying. Just not a need to explain them so extensively here.  Rather, limit each of those sections to one or 2 paragraphs, with a note at the top of the subsection referring to the article in question.  Smee 04:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I made the change to the new structure. It's a large edit, so if you have any dispute with the new structure, please mention it here before reversing the edit. Roccoconon 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Shortening this Biography
According to Wikipedia, this biography is now 57 kilobytes, almost twice as much as Wikipedia's 32KB guideline (see WP:SIZE). Although it may be against some editors' beliefs to cut information from this article, I think we need to either cut material or move some material into other articles to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. I propose the following:


 * 1) Mercilessly delete duplicate information (e.g. Family Related Organizations section)
 * 2) Dramatically simplify the Scientology section (e.g. Move portions dealing with est to the est article).
 * 3) Remove the "Related Individuals" section. Any person's biography could include a list of thousands of people with whom that person had contact. I think that a good guideline for including people in a biography is to limit mentions to other parts of the article. (e.g., Erhard's family members and many of his business associates are mentioned in other places)
 * 4) Move Ellen Erhard v IRS case to a page on Ellen Erhard


 * Agree with these thoughts. The Ellen Erhard vs. IRS case has very little relevance. Lists of related individuals are mostly Landmark/Est people, and should be listed there, if at all. One section I would like to see expanded is the 'influences' section.  Will work on that out of the Bartley book. Ratagonia 18:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Thoughts? Roccoconon 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The family section is entirely relevant, the Scientology section is a huge influence on the individual and all of his coursework, the "Related Individuals" section could be deleted, and the Ellen Erhard section is highly relevant for it mentions Erhard, and she is not notable enough by herself to have her own article. Smee 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Alright then, I'll make the edits we agreed to. As for the "Family" section...Sorry, I mentioned the wrong section. I meant the "Related Organizations" section, not the "Family" section. The "Related Organizations" section has a lot of duplications that I propose we merge together. I've done a strike-through in the list above. Roccoconon 19:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I removed the "related individuals" and also the list from "related organizations".  The way I see it, if organizations/companies from that list are notable enough, they will all get their own articles.  Smee 19:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I know we are supposed to comment on content, not contributors, but I still wanted to say, "Thanks" to Smee for the edits she is now making to cleanup the influences section. The restructuring has made some edits obvious, and Smee has gotten us off to a great start. Thanks. It's a big help. Roccoconon 20:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Smee 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Coming along nicely. Ratagonia 06:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to keep this article to it's proper length and in an effort to maintain what has been for a few weeks now a balanced and encyclopedic article, I have reverted the edits of an hour or so ago, finding them controversial, opinionated, even gossipy. -- Ftord1960 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A Wikipedia article has no "proper length". Considerations of article-length do not of themselves justify removing material. WP:SIZE states: "certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information". -- The aim of balance and encyclopedism (whatever "encyclopedic" may mean) calls for the addition of balancing material and alternative viewpoints to extend the coverage of the encyclopedia. The article may have appeared satisfactory to some editors for a few weeks, but had become grossly out-of-step with the state and tenor of discussion on the talk-page. --- Finding an edit controversial offers no grounds for reversion. If a detail seems controversial, one should check the citation. If a detail still seems controversial, one should raise a specific discussion on the talk-page. -- Finding an edit opinionated offers no grounds for reversion. If a detail seems opinionated, one should check the citation to establish the source and validity of the opinion. If the expression of that opinion appears to distort the neutrality of the article, one should adduce further material into the article in order to redress the perceived imbalance. -- Finding an edit "gossipy" offers no grounds for reversion. If a detail seems "gossipy", one should check the citation to establish the source and validity  and relevance of the detail expressed. If the detail still seems too trivial to include, one should bring the specific details to the talk-page for discussion amongst the editing community. -- Reverting with the edit-summary "THESE EDITS ARE CONTROVERSIAL AND MEARLY OPINION" suggests that we should not tolerate controversial edits, but the reverted edits (as their own edit-summary reveals) expressed in most cases the results of debate on the article talk-page. -- Reverting edits with the claim that they represent "MEARLY OPINION" seems to fly in the face of the documented sourcing of the edits. If we decide to revert such edits, it would seem first appropriate to engage in discussion of the opinionatedness of each change -- we can do that on the talk-page, but have not yet done so on this occasion. Indeed, previous discussion on the talk-page reveals that mere opinion does not necessarily stack up as an argument for removing this very material. -- Pedant17 01:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I DID in fact undo a source to a birth certificate as it is not a link to any ACTUAL document. -- Ftord1960 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation did indeed not reference a document, but an archive -- a valuable start in the process of verification of facts. -- Pedant17 01:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely clear on the wiki definition of vandalism, but my gut feeling is that I just averted some. -- Ftord1960 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than relying on gut-feeling for issues relating to alleged vandalism, see WP:VANDAL and follow the guidelines therein. Note the requirements to assume good faith, to flag suspected vandalism and to use talk-pages. Far from "preventing" vandalism, bulk-reversion can exemplify it. -- Pedant17 01:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how some of our editting members can see a distinction between "adding as much controversy as possible" (see section re: Income Chart below) as within the parameters of wiki guidelines for balanced and encyclopedic articles. -- Ftord1960 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have no idea about something, ask -- rather than reacting by reverting. If you wish to discuss a "distinction", please provide the two items to allow us to distinguish between them. For myself I would point to the use of Wikipedia policies (rather than "wiki guidelines") in fostering the development of balanced articles. -- Pedant17 01:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This site is supposed to be a resource for the people. For debates ensuing on a particular topic, let's give them the freedom to make up their own minds. Ftord1960 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Providing the people with documented resources on any matter gives them the tools to go about their own research with a view to making up their own minds (if indeed they do want to make up their minds on some "debate"). Removing documented resources deprives the people of the tools and possibly even of awareness of the issues in a given context. -- Pedant17 01:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientology Project
Why is this a Scientology project? Because Erhard is on the enemies list? Because he had a brief stint in Sci and it had an influence on his work? Or because they hounded him into exile? Please - NO! Ratagonia 04:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are multiple reputable cited secondary sources that refer to the influence that Scientology has had on Erhard's life, and the "technology" he used in EST, WEA, Forum, etc. - including his hagiography by Bartley. Smee 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Bartley, William Warren, Werner Erhard: the Transformation of a Man: the Founding of est. New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc. 1978. ISBN 0-517-53502-5, p. 146-7. Bartley also characterized Scientology as one of the "major steps" towards creating his "independent training", stating that "Werner encouraged his whole staff to take the Scientology communication course, and hired Peter Monk to help train them."
 * Please do not remove this again. Thanks.  Smee 04:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Please stop removing the helpful Scientology Series navigational box from the subsection on Scientology in this article - this is highly relevant and a useful tool. Thanks.  Smee 04:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I just saw the changes made since yesterday. I really like the family tree (didn't know you could do that on Wikipedia), but the Scientology navigation box is a bit cumbersome and distracting. It looks like Smee and Ratagonia have already been debating this. It seems entirely appropriate to mention whatever influence Scientology may have had on Erhard, but the navigation box is overkill since Erhard is not primarily know for being a Scientologist. What if we just provide a wiki link to the Scientology article? That way, interested people can go to the Scientology article from this article and navigate from the main Scientology article to other articles about Scientology using the navigation box on the main Scientology article? Roccoconon 15:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did someone decide to add a huge section on Scientology to the Werner Erhard article? Most of the sources are from the Pressman book. This is an encyclopedia entry. Just give a short mention that Erhard explored Scientology and then tell people they can read the Pressman book for more info? I am going to boldly edit down the Scientology section in this article and make it part of the larger "Influences" section unless someone objects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roccoconon (talk • contribs).
 * It is merely a navigational tool for other articles highly correlated to the subject matter in that subsection. It was a highly influentian source on Erhard and all of his coursework.  Smee 18:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Then should I also add the navigational tool for Zen Buddhism? I think it is sufficient to provide a link to the main articles for Erhard's influencers since this article is already so long. Roccoconon 18:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, please do not engage in violations of WP:POINT. And second of all, yes, you could add that navigational box, if it can fit within the subsection on Zen Buddhism, sure, it would be a useful navigational tool, yes.  Smee 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I was not making a point. I agree whole-heartedly (based on the sources cited) that Erhard was influenced by Scientology, but I believe that the navigation box belongs only on articles mentioned in the navigation. For example, if som politician mentions Jesus Christ as an influence, their biography should have a link to Jesus Christ and/or Christianity but not the Christianity navigation. Only prominent people mentioned in the history of Christianity should have navigation boxes in their biographies. Though he was influenced by Scientology, I do not think anyone is claiming Erhard was a prominent member of the Church of Scientology. If Erhard were a prominent member in the history of Scientology, I would be all for including the navigation box.


 * I added the Zen infobox to see what it would look like. I think it looks just as extraneous and distracting as the Scientology box. If people want to learn more about Scientology or Zen after reading the article, they can click on the link to learn more about those topics, where they will find a navigation or info box to learn more. Please, let's come to some agreement on this point. Make your case in more detail. Answer my arguments. Roccoconon 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If Christianity was a major force in their life, and influence coursework that they developed into a for-profit, privately owned coursework, and then Christianity itself developed its own coursework to combat that individual's coursework, yes, it would belong in that article. Smee 19:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


 * The connection between Scientology and Werner Erhard is weak one when made using the Steve Pressman Book as a resource. The Pressman book is essentially a novel given how few citations there are for its own sources.  Doesn't that essentially constitute original research according to Wiki-policy?Ebay3 15:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Other sources also link Scientology and Rosenberg/Erhard. Citing Pressman does not of itself undermine such alternative sources: rather it tends to reinforce them. -- Somehow this so-called 'novel" found its way into the non-fiction category -- at least in my local academic library. Pressman's relative dearth of citations smacks of the protection of journalistic sources rather than of novelist-style imagination, and the text of the book often spells out the material (who said what) that a non-journalist might have put into citations. -- Original research outside Wikipedia provides much of the content of Wikipedia. we call that "using secondary sources", and we evaluate such sources accordingly before dismissing them as fiction. -- Pedant17 05:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Using "technology"
Using the term "technology" (e.g., Erhard sold the "technology" to Landmark) strikes me as a neologism and therefore should not appear in this article Avoid_neologisms. I have seen "intellectual property" used instead of technology, which seems like a much more mainstream term. I'd like to change all the "technology" to "intellectual property". Any objections? Roccoconon 16:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine. Smee 18:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Changes made Roccoconon 18:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Smee 18:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * A neologism, yes; but a neologism from the estian/Erhardian/Scientological stable. The term could do with some explanatory expansion rather than getting replaced by the misleadingly-respectable phrase "intellectual property". The culture, practices, ideas and implications of Erhard/Rosenberg's "stuff" have a wider scope than simple "intellectual property". -- Pedant17 05:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Occupation - Retired?
I think it a mistake to go to this shorter, celeb box. While Werner may or may not be retired (there is in fact very little information available on what he is doing now, or where), the box stripped of useful information is rather void of content. Werner does not deserve a biography because he is 'retired'. I would support reverting to the previous version of the celeb info box, with occupations listed. Comments? Ratagonia 14:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If we are not going to argue again about which occupations to list, and instead list them all, I am fine with that. Otherwise no.  This is a biography, not a hagiography...  Smee 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Gandhi Intl Foundation Award
"In 1988 the Mahatma Gandhi International Foundation [2] gave Erhard its "Mahatma Gandhi Humanitarian Award"."

If you follow the link, you will see that this award is kinda a scam. Not a significant award, not worth mentioning in the lead (but will make sure it is mentioned in the body). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ratagonia (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I tried to remove it from the lead before, and others kept re-inserting it. Now that the award is exposed as a scam, you want to remove it?  It is still notable, and should remain in the lead.  Smee 18:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The award is actually even more notable now that we know that its foundation and founder were the subject of investigations by the United States Senate and United States Department of Justice. Smee 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

If we're going to mention the award, we need to let people know that it's a scam. Without any context, it's misleading (as it's intended to be). I'm going to make an edit describing the award as "controversial", and see if that sticks. Novalis 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I'm coming at this as a relative outsider, but I really don't think that the award should be in the lead. The reason? Whether it's good or bad, it isn't what he's known for; it isn't what makes him notable; it's not what people would be looking up this article for. Therefore, there may be reason to have it in the article, but there's also reason to keep it out of the lead. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that maybe this is a good compromise for now, Novalis' compromise. Smee 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Okay, sounds good, I can respect that argument... Smee 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I continue to edit the information about the award from the general text of the article as all that information is on the wikilink about the award itself. We know the leader of this organization was busted for tax evasion, etc.  AND such notables as Bill Clinton and Werner Erhard were given the awards.  Any info on what the process was to determine recipients?  I strongly feel the info about the award, by simple topical definition should be kept to the article about the award, and if this award is truly a SCAM taken from the site altogether.--68.122.124.107 (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Werner can have his scam award. Let it stay. He earned it and is very proud of it. -- Pax Arcane  17:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "he earned it and is very proud of it????" Pax, do you know Werner Erhard? It sounds like you've got some sort of grudge.  If that's the case it has no place in an encyclopedic discussion.  Really, on the encyclopedic question - do you have info that the award itself was a scam?  Did Clinton  give his award back? Whoever signed in with their IP address above is on the right track.  What info do we have on the award itself?  Anybody got something on the method people were chosen for the award and it's worthiness?--Ftord1960 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pax, after your snide comment above you put the stuff back in the article. I've taken it out again, because I think the real question is:  is there any information on whether the award itself, awarded years before the tax fraud scandal of it's leader, is a scam?  I once won the Presidential Physical Fitness Award from Richard Nixon.  I didn't think that I should turn it back in when it seemed clear his administration had engaged in felonious behavior and he resigned. Even if the awards were designated in a dishonest manner, which we have no evidence of, it still doesn't say much about Werner Erhard, though I'd advocate taking the award reference out of the article as it's then a bogus reference. --Ftord1960 (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pax, what's this reference in your edit notes to 'integrity'? Why is it in quotes?  According to dictionary.com the definition of integrity is:  "Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.  The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness." If you're wondering about Erhard's integrity, I thought we established that that is not the topic here.  As I see it, the topic is does the busting of the head of an organization for tax fraud make the award of the same organization to Erhard a decade previous unworthy of note, or necessarily cast aspertions on the recipient of said award.  I'm clear that the answer to both questions is "no".--Ftord1960 (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I used the LE version of the word integrity. We've actually spoken on the phone before, Ford, truth be told. You just don't remember. I remember the jargon. I dunno...a Ghandi memorial award given by someone who "claims" he's related to Ghandi but not. Sketchy. It used to actually be in the lede, and many pro-LE editors were proud of that from the article's inception, but when the stink came with the award, suddenly it sort of got really downplayed. Kinda funny, dontchathink? -- Pax Arcane  01:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The mysterious nature of the "Gandhi Humanitarian Award", long emphasized by websites like http://www.wernererhard.com/ (retrieved 2008-01-01; compare http://web.archive.org/web/20051211075150/http://www.wernererhard.com/ (retrieved 2008-01-01) deserves a brief explanation in the article on "Werner Erhard", whether a scam or no, as well aa a link to the Gandhi Memorial International Foundation. We call this "context" and regard it as useful to the curious reader, and helpful in distinguishing this award from other more prestigious awards. Strong feelings don't come into it:  building the web does. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Werner Erhard Biography Website
There is so much work that has been done on this article. I don't want to jump in and change anything since there seems to be a consensus building. I have a question about an assertion in the article:

"Years after Erhard left the United States, Landmark Education set up the "Werner Erhard Biographical Website". Landmark Education registered the separate address "werner-erhard.com" at Network Solutions and provided the initial content of the new web-pages from its own site."

The citations provided for the above paragraph do not match the assertion that is being made. If you go to Network solutions it says that the website was set up by someone named Mick Miller who lives in Cleveland, OH. I do not see the connection between this person, the Werner Erhard website and Landmark Education. While there seems to be a circumstantial connection, I don't think that the article can definitively say(as it currently does) that the website was set up by Landmark Education. Besides why wouldn't Werner Erhard set up his own website? Maybe Werner Erhard is living in Cleveland. :)Ebay3 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In the recent past, perhaps, the links would have allowed one to verify the statement. However, the website itself says it is set up by "The Friends of Werner Erhard".  Is there any way to verify the statement now?  That the content is similar or the same as previous WEA or Landmark material allows one to CONJECTURE that the website was set up by Landmark or related persons, but the wiki is not a place for conjecture.  Can we change this back to the verifiable statement "established by the Friends of Werner Erhard", or, as perhaps is more proper, have no attribution statement in the wiki.  The website itself has an attribution statement, why should the wiki? Ratagonia 20:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Werner Erhard Biography Website was set up with content copied from Landmark Education site

 * Initial version, Werner Erhard site
 * This information was exactly the same on the Landmark Education site. They provided the initial exact content for the site.  Smee 20:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

There is no evidence to that statement provided by this link, it is just an archived page. What you say may be what you remember, but it just doesn't hold up as a reference in an encyclopedia and it adds nothing to this biography.Saladdays 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This was the archived page which was exactly the same as the initial Werner Erhard web site Landmark Education archived page - the page is now unviewable. Looks like Landmark complained, and now we can't put 2 and 2 together here...   Coincidence???  Smee 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Interesting (I guess), but... I don't believe your memory is a citable source in the Wiki. Seems like we should get rid of this unverifiable statement. Ratagonia 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless there were to be a screenshot provided or something like that. In any event, it is certainly amusing the pains that Landmark goes to to disassociate their public image from Erhard, whilst at the same time setting up a hagiographical Web site for him with content ripped from their own site...  Smee 22:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * My two cents: I agree with Smee that it is a little suspicious, but I think the infobox can do without it. Maybe mention it in the section dealing with Erhard's ties to Landmark Education. For the infobox, I think something like "Official Website" would be a good link name.
 * Agreed. Good consensus/compromise, I will remove from infobox...  Smee 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Yay! Roccoconon 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Appearance on Larry King
The caption for the photo of Erhard on Larry King Live incorrectly states that Erhard was on the show December 20. The linked transcript says that Heber Jentzsch was the guest. They played some clips of Erhard, and Erhard's brother Harry Rosenberg called in, but Erhard was not on the show on December 20, as the linked transcript shows. I have not found a reliable source for the actual date Erhard was on the show, but the following sources agree it was December 8, 1993 in an episode titled "Whatever Happened to Werner Erhard?":
 * http://www.xs4all.nl/~anco/mental/randr/aworks.htm
 * http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/carto/thoburn.htm

I'm going to change the date in the caption and remove the transcript link. If someone wants to put the Dec 20 transcript somewhere else that's relevant or can find the Dec 8 transcript, great! Roccoconon 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The transcript link is most relevant, as I'm sure all will see. Please do not remove it.  Smee 01:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Jewish?
Is this guy an ethnic Jew? Could we add him to a Jewish category such as Category:Jewish Americans? He has a common Jewish last name ("Rosenberg"), so I figure that I'd ask if we know anything regarding his ethnic background or his family's (mother and father's) religion? --WassermannNYC 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Bartley (authorized biography), Werner had Jewish grandparents on his father's side, but his father converted to Christianity when he was small, and he was raised in the Episcopal Church, baptized, confirmed and served eight years as a acolyte at the altar. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to include him in Jewish Americans since he did not have a Jewish mother nor was he raised Jewish.  Ratagonia 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

New Age author?
As far as I know, Erhard does not have any published writings. Therefore, I am removing the category 'new age author', because he is not an author. If you can cite a book or two that he has written, please do, and add back in the category. Ratagonia 01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you are right, I was mass re-categorizing the New Age Category - my bad. S facets 01:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pedant17's edits

 * Pedant17's edits are helpful, minor in nature, and well-sourced from reputable secondary sourced material. Please do not revert back the changes, but instead change individual points you may have issues with, whilst discussing here on the talk page.  Thank you for your time.  Smee 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

"spin-offs and successors"
Comments? Roccoconon 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards to this - the usage of the phrase: "spin-offs and successors" is in fact NPOV.  This is a common terminology utilized in the business sector, actually specific to this particular situation of the transfer or sale of intellectual property, as was done in the case of these successive company changes.  For more information, see article Spin out.  Smee 20:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Yeah, read the spin out, but... what companies are you talking about? I think you mean Landmark Forum, which is neither a spin out, a spin off nor a successor company.  Since the next paragraph includes the Landmark Forum in 'companies offering courses based on...', it seems like this "spin-offs and successors" language is just confusing, and offers no value.  If you have specific companies that should be mentioned in the lead, please let us know what they are.  Otherwise, it seems very clear that Erhard is known primarily for est and The Forum.  (as in, period).  Other editors comments???? Ratagonia 06:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From article, Spin out - The common definition of spin out is when a division of a company or organization becomes an independent business. The "spin out" company usually takes intellectual property, technology, or existing products from the parent organization, and then transforms them into new products or services. - In this case, the "spin out" company usually took all of the above: intellectual property, technology, and existing products - from the previous incarnations of the companies.  Therefore, this classification is most appropriate.  Smee 06:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * My two cents after reading the spin out article:
 * 1) The sentence as it is written is just poor grammar: "Werner Hans Erhard (born Jack Rosenberg on September 5, 1935),[1] is best known for the self-improvement programs he established: the “est Training” (1971 – 1983), the “Forum” (1984 – 1991), their spin-offs and successors." There needs to be an "and" or something, especially since this is the first sentence in the encyclopedia entry.
 * 2) As I understood the spin out article, the term relates to companies, not courses. So, one could say WEA was a spin out of est, or Landmark Education is a spin out of WEA, but one would not say the Landmark Forum is a spin out of the Forum, since the Landmark Forum and the Forum are courses, not companies. Clear?
 * 3) spin out is the wrong word here since WEA did not continue to exist. As the spin out] article says, HP spinning out Agilent was a spin out. As I understand it, WEA was dissolved and Erhard sold its intellectual property to Landmark Education. While it is worth noting such a transfer, I think [[spin out is the wrong term for it, but I'm nit-picking on this particular point.
 * 4) Lastly, the sentence addresses what Erhard is "best-known" for. I propose we say that Erhard is best known for "for the self-improvement programs he established." Those include est and the Landmark Forum. Those "he established" do not include any successors, so I would wait to mention any such successors later in the article.
 * 1) Any "best-known" claim runs a risk of non-neutrality. I would avoid such opinionizing if possible, or at least flag with an "arguably" (as in "arguably best-known for ..."). That said, I suspect that est (and possibly WE&A) constitute the immediate concrete things associated with Erhard/Rosenberg, whereas the vaguer "self-improvement programs" might imply that est and the numerous est-type orgs count primarily as "self-improvement programs" -- a disputable interpretation. -- Pedant17 05:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Loaded Language - Cult Leader
This is an accusation and not a citation. It is completely inappropriate to a biography of a living person.Saladdays 20:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Very interesting that you used the term "loaded language", in this instance. In any event, the information is cited by a reputable, secondary source, but I will let Pedant17 comment further on this.  Smee 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC).


 * For reference purposes, my text read:

occupation = (Retired cult-leader )
 * -- I realise that the term "leader" (not "Leader") sounds vague and insulting, yet popular parlance does use the word in this way. But I would welcome an explanation as to why the precisely-referenced descriptive term "cult-leader" (not "Cult Leader") could seem accusatory and "completely inappropriate" when describing the originator and head of an allegedly defunct organization recognized and documented as a cult in sociology and in various media (see for example List of groups referred to as cults and Erhard Seminars Training). -- Consider the use of the "celebrity" Infobox. I would question/doubt the status of Jack Rosenberg as a celebrity, but the box provides the means of explaining celebrity status. Does one become/remain a celebrity if merely "retired"? -- Seldom. Does one become/remain a celebrity by developing training methods? -- Even more unlikely. Does one become/remain a celebrity as a car-salesman, as a businessman, as an educator, or as an ex-Scientologist. -- Not always. Does one attain celebrity status by founding and operating an entity popularly referred to as a cult? -- Much more plausible. -- In a biography of a significant/noteworthy person, whether living or no, it seems eminently appropriate to draw attention to the reason for that person's significance, if any. If we regard Rosenberg as notable, let's highlight the reason for that alleged noteworthiness. If we don't regard Rosenberg as notable, we can apply to have his entry in Wikipedia deleted. -- Pedant17 01:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this reference is in the "Gossip" section, it seems rather mild. Personally, I think the whole section is inappropriate, just an opportunity to bring forth various accusations.  Well-sourced gossip, but gossip nonetheless.  "Cult" has a specific meaning that has been discussed, at length, in court.  est, Landmark, WEA are not a cult, as has been established in a court of law.  In the popular press, various characters can and do say anything they want, including calling est a Cult.  Cult and cult are perjoratives, loaded language.  In the wiki, we should be a little more careful with the language we use.  Even if a popular writer calls est a cult and Werner a cult leader, that does not mean that the writer has expertise that makes them a reliable source on this point.  Thus, the wiki should avoid the POV labelling of Erhard as a cult leader (or Cult Leader). Ratagonia 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I detect no "Gossip" section -- please elucidate. Not to disparage gossip (useful if clearly labelled as such), but I don't see the relevance of the "gossip conversation" in the context of labelling Rosenberg/Erhard a "retired cult-leader". -- The word "cult" has multiple specific meanings and implications and connotations, over and above its usage in any specific legal proceedings in any specific legal jurisdiction. Though many people use the word pejoratively, the cited use by Steven Tipton in Getting saved from the sixties: moral meaning in conversion and cultural change has more an academic-sociological flavor, especially given the serious and non-popular/non-populist tone of Tipton's work, and the care with which he documented his extensive participant-observation study of est and of contemporary religious organizations. Tipton's reputation as an academic also militates against imlications of lack of expertise or of reliability. Thus the well-documented, referenced designation of Erhard/Rosenberg as a "retired cult-leader" appears justified. -- Pedant17 05:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Public Perception" section is dangerously close to the POV line if not crossing it. I am especially dismayed that people are using phrases like "Some say..." I looked at the references and one is a psychiatrists essay on why he became a psychiatrist. Our current rigor as it relates to this section would allow me to setup blogs saying Erhard is a "garbage man", "presidential candidate", "descendent of Desmond Tutu" and other such ridiculous remarks and then put them down as sources. If someone sees a "Public Perception" section as necessary to this biography of Erhard, please explain. And let's please start attributing quotes in this section to those who are quoted. But personally, I think we can just get rid of this section and incorporate any characterizations of Erhard that are truly relevant into the rest of the article. Roccoconon 21:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The relevant text for reference purposes:

Public Perception
People characterize Werner Erhard in sharply different ways. A self-published work by Espy and Robert Navarro portrays him as a leading-edge thinker in the field of human performance and effectiveness. Alex Howard called him a "salesman". Dr. Shauki Mohomed Erhard a "successful businessman". Est-advocates in the heyday of that organization came to regard "Werner" as "Source". Baerbel Schwertfeger called him an "ex-Scientologist", while Ben Macintyre of the Times labelled him a "New Age guru". William Alnor called Erhard a "cult leader".

Evaluating Erhard within the context of the self-help movement, Steve Salerno in his book SHAM sees him as: "too flaky [...] to capture the popular imagination." Attempts such as that of McCarl et al to associate the name of Werner Erhard with philosophy have not yet succeeded in making him part of the philosophical mainstream. His small body of written thought, such as the terse aphorisms booklet (If God Had Meant Man to Fly, He Would Have Given Him Wings; or: Up to Your Ass in Aphorisms), once distributed to est-students, have had resonance mainly in New-Age circles. Some have come to stress his role as an "educator".


 * The "Public perception" section, intended as a sort of summary and as a glance at the influence of Rosenberg/Erhard (addressing the core issue of notability), does seem a little restrained in providing so many semi-favorable views of the man. At least it avoided "it is said..." constructions and references to blogs. We can certainly make the holders of the various views more prominent, and I would welcome more sources -- though a psychiatrist's view of Rosenberg/Erhard may provide particular piquancy. -- I see a potential danger with scattering epithets through the article (rather than gathering them in one place) in that we may lose balance or make the sourced quoting less prominent -- a stylistic issue, perhaps. -- Pedant17 05:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As a general note, wiki standards not-withstanding, an individual that make controversial statements, behaves in a manner that draws attention, and invites controversy...these individuals are not bound by conventions of WP:BLP...only so in if they were a person who lived a private life. Rosenberg did not, so one must read WP:BLP further and correctly apply that standard. Erhard did not call himself a "cult leader," this I understand. But his surrounding actions and behavior earned him that title by many people and many journalists, and his continued public behaviors reinforced it. It is not a popular title, but public figures seem to go out of their way to earn these titles, unfortunately. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 22:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cayman Islands Info
I reduced the statements about the Cayman Islands living situation to that which is provided by the sources stated. (Hard for a 2001 article to be a source for where Erhard is living now!).

I also removed the references to the letter from Schreiber and the reply from Rick Ross. I claim they have no relevance to Werner Erhard. The first is a pointed letter from Schreiber objecting to the conflation of Erhard and Landmark Forum, and the second is the usual blustering from Rick Ross about Landmark's objection to conflation. Neither of these has anything to do with Werner Erhard, and therefore should not be in his encyclopedic bio. Comments? Ratagonia 07:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I restored the heavily cited material from reputable secondary sources. I will make an attempt at a compromise, however, and also move some of the blockquotes to within the citations, as I had done earlier, as well as shorten up the subsection, momentarily...  Smee 07:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The material has no relation to the subject. Perhaps other editors could comment on the appropriateness of this material. Other editors - please comment?  Ratagonia 16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please bear with me, I will attempt to adjust this to a reasonable compromise shortly. Thank you for your time and your patience.  Smee 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I have compromised, and adjusted the material cited so as to be directly relevant to the subject of the article in question. Smee 17:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the compromise. However, I still do not see a connection between the material presented and Werner Erhard.  Also, an article written in 2001 cannot be the source for saying that he lives there "Currently".  I will change just that wording, and look forward to comments from other editors regarding whether the Schreiber letter and Ross rebuttal have ANY relevance to Werner Erhard.  OTHER EDITORS - PLEASE COMMENT ---  Ratagonia 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They are directly discussing Erhard, his impact, and whereabouts. Thus directly relevant.  Glad we have been able to come to a compromise on this.  I implemented your sugggestions about "As of 2001" ...  Smee 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I must be reading different letters, or perhaps you have additional material that should be cited. The two letters to the editor in question do not contain any information about Werner Erhard's whereabouts, they are just a repetition of Schreibers desire to maintain separation between LANDMARK FORUM and WE, and Ross's inaccurate statements conflating the two.  The quoted content from Ross, while correctly quoted, is factually inaccurate.  Also, Letters to the Editor are in general, not a Reliable Source.  Since these letters have NO (ZIP, NADA) in them that relates to the subject or (conceding a point) is not better sourced elsewhere, Let me again suggest they have NO RELEVANCE to this article.  Again, seeking comments from other editors. Ratagonia 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please cut out the sarcasm. It is difficult to converse in this manner.  Try a more polite tack please.  Thanks.  Smee 06:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
 * No Sarcasm involved. On another issue you indicated that you had other material to offer as source material. I AGF and assumed you had more material on this issue, because your claims are not supported by the current material referenced. Ratagonia 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully support User Ratagonia's arguments here. The material has no relevance.  The citations for it are silly.  The Schreiber letter is just a letter to the editor (not refernce material) and the Ross stuff doesn't have anything to do with anything after 1997, so it has no relevance here.  These do not add up to saying anyting at all about where the subject lived. And I have trouble with a restaurant reservation being used.  It just is not an encyclopedic source.  I am in favor of taking this section out, but I can see leaving in Ratagonia's version as a compromise.Saladdays 19:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Offering requested comments: For what it is worth, I did not read Ratagonia's comments as sarcastic. I think the information referenced in this section is inadequate to be used for a citation in wikipedia. This section does seem to be more in the vein of a tabloid than an encyclopedia and really not all that important to the article.  If he retired and left the United States does it really matter?   I vote that it is removed. Ebay3 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * After reading through the letter and Ross's comments, I also support Ratagonia's arguments. It is entirely relevant to mention that Erhard was "living in Cayman in 2001, according to the..." but adding extra information about a letter Schreiber sent to distance Landmark from Erhard and then Ross' response to that letter is distracting and irrelevant to a biography of Erhard. Roccoconon 18:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a 2006 or 2007 source for Werner living in the Caymans, per the news site of the island. -- Pax Arcane  00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What's in a name?
I replaced the references to John Paul Rosenberg with Jack. Both Bartley and Pressman use ONLY the name Jack. I could not find a reference to confirm actual birth certificate name of John Paul. Replaced the cited primary source (birth certificate) with a secondary source (Bartley) - see WP:RS for preference of reliable secondary sources. Ratagonia 01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the name got changed back to "John Paul" and the frenchism "nee" used. I've looked around at other biographies, and none of them have the french word "nee" to indicate the birthname, so I will change that back to "born".Ratagonia 05:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS. Good secondary sources are preferred to primary, thus i will change the citation for birthname back to Bartley. Both Bartley and Pressman agree that the birthname was simply "Jack".  Unless a reliable source can be found that says otherwise, let's leave it as Jack, and sourced to Bartley. Ratagonia 05:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the birthname AGAIN, back to just Jack. There are sources that claim "John Paul", however, the source that should know best, Bartley, says "just Jack".  We do NOT need two sources on the birthname and date, especially two sources that disagree.  Bartley is the authorized biography, and therefore, I CLAIM, the best source for the birth name. Ratagonia 02:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Where different sources appear to contradict each other we need more sources, not fewer. When one ostensibly reliable source stands at odds with another, we can leave the matter to readers'judgment rather than impose editorial fiat. Where secondary sources seem at odds with primary sources, a case arises for including both. An authorized biography may reflect the preferences or memories of the subject at the time of writing, but not necessarily the intentions or the documented actions of parents at the time of a registration of a birth. Given the string of name-changes associated with this particular individual (see details -- now removed -- in previous versions of the article), and bearing in mind that numerous sources quote the "John Paul Rosenberg" birth-name, the more detail on this point (albeit at footnote-level) the better. Claiming that an authorized biography outweighs an official birth-record could lead us into the suppression of pertinent and accurate information. -- Pedant17 01:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. Do you have a copy of the birth certificate that you could share with the class?  The sources that give "John Paul" are all derivative, thus, in my opinion, likely to be an error that appeared and was picked up somewhere along the line, and perpetuated.  Not all secondary sources are equal.  Secondary sources with direct access to the subject, especially of a Living Person Biography, should be given preference over tertiary sources on details such as this.  On the other hand, if you can present a source that uses the John Paul version that has the makings of a reliable-on-this-issue source, we should consider it.  An on-line copy of the Birth Certificate in an official government archive with the correct date and correct parents would, of course, be definitive.  Ratagonia 04:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On 2007-04-04 an edit by user:Ratagonia removed from the Werner Erhard article a footnote reading: That would appear to point in the direction of a primary source, albeit perhaps not online nor readily/publically available. -- Pedant17 02:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Govt archived copy of first marraige certificate would also work for me. Ratagonia 05:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Above discussion helpful on what is most wanted by wiki. I agree that many of the sources using "John Paul" are tertiary.  But in a re-read of Bartley, I just found that he mentions on p.7 that "Werner attended the Episcopal School regularly, was baptized John Paul Rosenberg..."  I'm thinking this may be where all the references to "John Paul" are coming from, combined with the statement on p. 46 that his third child was named, "John Paul Rosenberg, Jr."  Since so many tertiary sources refer to Erhard's original name as "John Paul Rosenberg" I think it's worthwhile to reference both in the article, and shall do so.  Ftord1960 21:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I really think that in an encyclopedia biography the most proper and formal name should be used in the opening. It just seems respectful to me. The name we are baptised with is the formal name and we can use Bartley p7 to reference it. The word "nee" was brought up before as a way to cleanly and consicesly say "His name is this and his formal given name was that." I think that including both names is confusing and a too much for an intro.  I am of the opinion that it should read "Werner Erhard,(nee John Paul Rosenberg), is a creator of.......etc."  The birthdate is right there next to the sentence in the box, so it is also a repeat.--Saladdays 22:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Objection1: Even in light of it being a rather small point that perhaps I should just get off of... I am not familiar with the rituals of the Episcopal Church, but in some churches, on confirmation (or late baptism), saint's names are taken as a sign of acceptance of the church.  I accept Bartley as a source, and see that on page 7, but that does not mean that he was BORN 'John Paul', rather that he was baptised 'John Paul'.  Bartley also states that he was born 'simply Jack'. (Perhaps this is my own little war about not reading more into sources than is actually there).  Thus I am still waiting for a source that says he was BORN John Paul.  Perhaps someone who knows more about the customs of the Episcopal Church, east coast, 50's could comment. Ratagonia 07:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Objection2: by my dictionary (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dict. 10th edition), the english word 'nee' is used to indicate a woman's maiden name. I suggest the term 'born' would be more appropriate and much clearer. Though many readers would understand the frenchism nee, it seems kind of, uh, fluffy. I poked around the wiki looking at other aliased persons (mostly movie stars), and found rien usage de la mot nee, and frequent use of the term 'born'. I will revert this point, avoiding the temptation to return 'Jack' to the forefront. Ratagonia 07:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the changes in Objection2, this is sound reasoning on the usage de la mot nee.--Saladdays 17:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"See Also"
The "See Also" section seems like a great place to find other sources with extensive info about Erhard. I'm worried that the "Online Sources" section, in comparison, is just becoming a list of links to sources on the Internet that mention "Werner Erhard". Most of these sources are already mentioned in the article as references and few, unlike the documentaries and books mentioned, provide much information about Erhard. I would propose informally limiting the "See Also" section to sources that provide large amounts of information and leave other sources to being mentioned as references. Specifically, I'd like to remove the two court cases and maybe the "Laurence Platt" essays link. Roccoconon 20:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Landmark Forum/Forum Box
I propose removing the Box titled Landmark Forum/Forum. There is so much information about Landmark Education already in this article this box just takes up room. There are plenty of links to the things already in the box. Ebay3 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has lots of room. The box gathers and summarizes -- just like an encylopedia, really. -- Pedant17 05:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this box should not be on this article. A Nav box is a way to organize main categories.  Werner Erhard is not a sub category of the Landmark Forum.  Also there has been discussion that this particular box is POV....See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erhard_Seminars_Training#Request_for_comment_-_Navigational_box_at_bottom_of_article about this particular box presenting a POV.  In reading wikipedia guidelines about navigational boxes, they caution that because boxes tend to push a POV generally, if there is disagreement, the box should be removed.Saladdays 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See - WP:CLS which says that article series boxes (navigation templates) often inadvertently push a POV and suggest that one aspect of a topic is more important than others, or are being used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places, or asserting project proprietorship. Many templates go to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion because they appear to push POV.Saladdays 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I second User:Pedant17's well-put sentiments. Smee 07:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Work on Accuracy
As I read this article, there are inconsistencies within the article and content that is contradictory to sourced material on other articles. For example, there is no good source that says Mr. Screiber was Mr. Erhard's attorney. Anything that does, is an opinion or a novelization of peoples' experience, and it is not sourced. There are conflicting statements about what Mr. Erhard received, if anything, from Landmark Education in the sale of the company. Let's please have the material and content be from reliable and well-sourced sources. FreedomByDesign 17:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Early foundation?
For your pile: WERNER ERHARD FOUNDATION Number: C0694205 Date Filed: 11/30/1973	Status: dissolved Jurisdiction: California Address P O BOX 2058 BURLINGAME, CA 94011-2058 Agent for Service of Process KATARENA T BACA (I believe the date is when it was incorporated, not dissolved.) AndroidCat 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What's in a divorce?
Again, in my quest for accuracy - when did Werner divorce Pat Rosenberg? Surely not in 1960! Perhaps on reconciliation with the family, quite a bit later. A source perhaps? I've checked with a lawyer friend, and generally entering a bigamous marraige does not automatically divorce you from the first wife - or it might be more popular! Ratagonia 07:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bigamy and abandonment don't sound nice, but they are what they are. Pat had to go on welfare and had no idea why her husband left for an unusually long period of time, as did their children. The bigamy and abandonment are what they are. That's what happened. No spin needed or implied. If people want terms that make them sound like other things, I'm sorry they feel that need to do so. What's the need to change the legal wording? I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind it. The actions were criminal and the terms the legal system has provided are apt. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 22:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The comment was made in relation to an unsourced statement that his first marraige ended in divorce (at the moment of bigamy, perhaps). This comment is no longer in the article, thus the point is now moot.  I could find no source that had any information on his first (presumed) divorce).  Ratagonia 02:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. From wiki-Bigamy is when one individual is married to two people at the same time and at least one of the marriages is a legal marriage. Most western countries have laws making any second marriage a crime. For example, in the United States, because of the contract a married person makes upon becoming married, that person is under obligation not to marry again as long as the first marriage continues; stipulations of the marriage license applying. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the sentence "He then left his first wife and family in Philadelphia and traveled west with his new wife" to read, "He then left his first wife and family in Philadelphia without obtaining a divorce and traveled west with his new wife." If you guys don't want to use the term "bigamy," that's fine, even though that is what it is.  I'm a lawyer, and marrying a second woman without divorcing the first is "bigamy" in every State in the Union.  As far as I know, there is no automatic dissolution of the first marriage upon marrying someone else (in any State).  In fact, the first marriage remains valid and the second one has not legally occurred.Bananafish00 04:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've further editted the changes of Bananafish. I don't think anyone's arguing the legal definition of "bigamy".  What there is a concern about, within the guidelines of Wiki which implore us to be especially cautious in biographies of living people, is the impression the word usages leave with the public. I think stating the facts as Bananafish has done is an improvement. I've worked the information about the lack of a divorce into the text with reference to events in Werner Erhard's later life, as I think it gives a more accurate impression of the man while eliminating the possibility of harm (a requirement of Wiki's policies on bio's of living people.)  I have not, so far, seen a need to eliminate the fact that the original divorce was neglected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftord1960 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Above neglect of signature was inadvertent! Sorry.  Listen.  There's also adifference between the word, "bigamy" and "bigamist".  The fact that he married someone before divorcing his first wife does not prove any advocacy of dual partnerships, or bigamy as a practice or a lifestyle.  I still think avoiding the term altogether and leaving the description as we have is best.--Ftord1960 21:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Tax Diagram
I understand that our job here is to add as much controversy to Werner Erhard as we can (sarcasm), but I'm not sure how the tax diagram is helpful here. It is not explained, it really is not part of this article, though it is related to Mr Erhard, it is not directly related to this article. It is also rather complicated and I think it adds more confusion that it adds substance.

I think it should be removed. But I will not edit-war with Mr Smee about this. Lsi john 12:45, 7 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 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).

Actually, I was hoping you would remove your sarcasm and prejudical wording. Maybe I'm not clear, and if so, I'll accept responsibility for that. Let me see if I can be polite and clear at the same time: highly notable is prejudicial. most amusing is sarcastic and condescending and no place in any article is simple false and unfounded (lie). Perhaps this is intentional, perhaps it's just your editing style. Either way, it still comes across as prejudicial and condescending. If you wish to evoke a different response from other editors, it would be my suggestion that you choose less expressive ways to state neutral sentences. Thanks. Lsi john 01:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize if "most amusing" came across in that fashion with you, and I will refrain from this usage in the future. Smee 04:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

Income chart
I concur with the perceptive insight that we have the task of adding "as much controversy to Werner Erhard as we can" -- provided we adhere to Wikipedia standards and provided we do not provoke internal controversy by removing relevant and sourced material such as public-domain tax-diagrams. Adding such material makes that material "part of this article" and directly relates it to "this article". If such material requires explanation, one can ask for explanation, rather than lobby for removal. If such material appears "rather complicated", one can ask for explanation, rather than lobby for removal. If such material appears to "add more confusion" (more than what?) one can ask for and edit explanations, rather than lobby for removal. If such material appears not to add substance, one can carry out relevant research, add a commentary, and/or ask for and edit explanations, rather than lobbying for removal. I suggest we restore the tax-diagram and work to integrate it into the article. -- Pedant17 02:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Biography of Living Persons
Please review WP:BLP

"Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living persons.

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.'--Saladdays 17:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And by implication, sourced or well-sourced material, whether it expresses negative, positive or questionable attitudes, should stay. The WP:BLPpolicy also states: "Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy" (apparently referrring to canons such as WP:Verifiability). A case would exist for removing self-published material (Navarro and Navarro, for example: Navarro,, Espy M.; Robert Navarro (2002). Self Realization: The Est and Forum Phenomena in American Society. Xlibris Corporation, 42. ISBN 14010422010) and material from corporate and adulatory web-sites such as http://www.landmarkeducation.com and http://wernererhard.com ; but quotations from major metropolitan newspapers like The Times of London and the San Francisco Chronicle, and works from reputable publishers like St. Martin's Press and dtv (Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag) have strong claims to remain part of the article. Where does the journal Contemporary Philosophy sit in terms of reliability? -- Pedant17 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Getting the article right is about using good quality sources. I didn't see that the Journal of Contemporary Philosophy is a reference in this article, so it is not really worthwhile to argue that point, is it? Works that are self published indeed may not be the best sources to use as references. According to [WP:Verifiabilty]] reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Pressman's book has no citations, and no fact checking or editorial oversight, so that would also seem to not be a good quality source. Landing on the side of "doing no harm" is a stated guideline for articles about living persons, so taking out material that is poorly sourced is within those parameters. However, going back through the history and sticking up an old article is a completely different matter. All that does is negate the hours and thoughtful editing that have gone into contributing to writing a good article. It is disrespectful and does not address any of the points discussed here. --Saladdays 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The notion of "getting the article right" sounds rather simplistic and foreign to me in the Wikipedia context. Articles will continuously grow and improve as editors work on them, using the best available sources consistent with giving a complete, balanced and neutral point-of-view. We need to get our facts and references accurate, but a definitive "rightness" does not exist. --


 * Reference to the journal Contemporary Philosophy relates to McCarl, Steven R., Zaffron, Steve, Nielsen, Joyce McCarl and Kennedy, Sally Lewis, "The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum". Contemporary Philosophy, Vol. XXIII, No. 1 & 2, Jan/Feb & Mar/Apr 2001 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=278955 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.278955. This article, co-written by Steve Zaffron (the Director of Landmark Education Business Development) expresses an approving attitude to the "thought' of Rosenberg/Erhard, and has featured in the article for many months. It disappeared from the article in the course of the edit by User:Saladdays timestamped 23:02 on 2007-09-05. I regard it as relevant to our discussion on references, hence my question: Where does the journal Contemporary Philosophy sit in terms of reliability?


 * The Wikipedia "official policy" document WP:BLP expresses the consensus on self-published material clearly: "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". One cannot merely fudge their status as "may not be the best sources to use as references".


 * Let's examine what Verifiability says about sources:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. ... Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.


 * Now let's examine Steven Pressman's book: Pressman, Steven, Outrageous Betrayal: The dark journey of Werner Erhard from est to exile. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993. ISBN 0-312-09296-2 as a claimed example of a non-"good quality source". An objection against this work's reliability states that the book lacks citations. Given its status as a mainstream work coming out of investigative journalism with a presumed interest in protecting its sources, one need not expect thorough citations; nor does Verifiability insist on this criterion. The fact that the book does feature items of critical apparatus like footnotes and notes on sources counts as a bonus when dealing with a non-academic work on subjects relating to contemporary popular culture. (Remember, Verifiability states: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.") -- The claim that "Pressman's book has no ... fact checking or editorial oversight" does not seem plausible. Pressman worked and works as a journalist in legal and investigative work. We can presume some familiarity with the arts of fact-checking. And he published with a reputable mainstream publishing-house, St. Martin's Press. If any evidence exists that St. Martin's Press omitted its legal vetting and editorial supervision in the case of this legally provocative and occasionally controversial book, let's see it. -- So far, the Pressman book appears as a good-quality source, but wait: the Wikipedia article on Outrageous Betrayal itself claims that the book appears cited in a variety of other worthy and prominent places:

Bardini and Friedewald cite the book in their analysis of Erhard Seminars Training, in History of Technology. Outrageous Betrayal is also cited in Anderson's The Next Enlightenment, Jenkins' Mystics and Messiahs , Janja Lalich's Bounded Choice , Yalom's The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy , Weiten's Psychology Applied to Modern Life , Weiner's Battling the Inner Dummy , Palm's The Great California Story , Milton's , and Lalich's Take Back Your Life


 * Almost makes Pressman's Outrageous Betrayal sound like what WP:SOURCES calls a "respected mainstream publication" in some circles! -- certainly not quite the sort of reaction one would expect to a so-called "novel" that nevertheless appears in serious libraries catalogued and filed under non-fiction codes (Dewey Decimal Classification: 158; Library of Congress Classification: RC489)


 * The more we look into the matter, the more difficult it appears to dismiss this particular work as not a "good quality source". But even if the book had fewer virtues, its place as a detailed account of much of the goings on in the career of Rosenberg/Erhard remains unparalleled. We have the case of a relatively minor contemporary figure (Rosenberg/Erhard) who has largely escaped the attention of serious academic biographers, especially in the later stages of his activity. Pending the writing or locating of better sources, we need to cite Outrageous Betrayal as a balancing to the hagiographic (though often poorly sourced) literature on Rosenberg/Erhard, in order to obtain a neutral article covering the multiple existing points of view. And even the current brief versions of the article, in their truncated and mangled state, do not hesitate to cite Pressman.


 * I entirely support the doctrine of "doing no harm" in biographies. Hence the requirements of balance and the exposure of some of the more insidious ideas and practices put about in the name of Rosenberg/Erhard call for well-cited detail. If a citation appears poorly-sourced, we need to cite it better, not conclude necessarily that the source does not measure up. Let's not confuse a "poorly sourced" citation with unreliable sources.


 * The meaning of the reference to "going back through the history and sticking up an old article" escapes me. The negation of "the hours and thoughtful editing that have gone into contributing to writing a good article" shows most blatantly in the unjustified and disrespectful deletion of valuable and thoroughly-sourced material. I look forward to discussion of individual points of detail as to why we should not expand and enhance the article with the material available -- material banished for too long from playing its part in an accurate and balanced article.


 * -- Pedant17 03:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the time that you put into writing the above comments, I strongly feel that a book about events that happened or supposedly happened that contains virtually no references SHOULD NOT be considered a reliable source no matter how many times it is quoted. While I do not intend to be extreme when I say this, when you look at how this un-sourced book is being used on the internet (Do a Google search on the title), there are similarities to the history of the book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So that I am unambiguous: I AM NOT inferring that anyone here is a Nazi nor that the criticism of the subject of this article should be compared to the historical persecution of the Jewish people.Ebay3 15:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Biographies like Pressman's Outrageous Betrayal cover more ground than "events that happened or supposedly happened" -- they add color and interpretation and explanation and comment. You don't expect detailed sourcing for all that: you take it as a package and judge the work as a whole on its consistency and its match with other known facts. -- If we need to re-shape the technical Wikipedia-internal definition of what Wikipedians should treat as a "reliable source", I suggest we need to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. It might have consequences like banning the Bible as a source for Near East history, or forbidding the use of the US Declaration of Independence as a document of political theory. -- Note that some of Pressman's material used in the writing of the book gets labeled as from "confidential sources". Such sources by their nature generate few footnotes. But Pressman published the information: if he or his informants got the details wrong, we need to see plausible evidence to the contrary from sources of equal or greater merit. -- I googled "outrageous betrayal" and failed to stumble on anything noticeably sinister. If a  reliable source exists on the use of Pressman's Outrageous Betrayal in ways reminiscent of the use of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I suggest a mention in the article on Outrageous Betrayal. -- Pedant17 04:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know to what extent the Wikipedia policies on the biographies of living people should apply to the Werner Erhard article. Do we regard Jack Rosenberg as alive ? -- He faded out of existence almost half a century ago.  Do we regard Curt Wilhelm VonSavage as alive? -- Almost certainly not: his career seems to have lasted a maximum of a few short weeks back in 1960. Do we regard Werner Erhard as alive? -- In that "Werner Spits" seems to have replaced him, perhaps not... The sequence of aliases and name-changes suggests to me that we have to do here with a series of personae to which the generic strictures of the WP:BLP guidelines have less relevance. -- Pedant17 04:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Book Links to Amazon??????
Very odd. What's the idea behind these? Wiki tradition is to wikilink to the book on the wiki, and let people go to the provide of their choice via the isbn from there. I am taking out these odd links. Ratagonia 15:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We all need to edit conservatively after reading WP:BLP
I reverted Salad's edits. It was a huge chunk at one time, I'm not entirely comfortable with large sections removed without corresponding discussion. Let's be cool. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted again after Saladdays refused to read this and/or discuss. I'm casting a vote now that he remove himself from this article due to his behavior. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 11:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ebay3
Good job with editing consevatively. Whether or not that title changes again, I have no problem discussing it here. Thanks! Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 19:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Saladdays, If you're not going to participate in the discussion or read, leave
Please leave and stop editing. You're not discussing anything and you're being obtuse. As I've said before, due to your emotional attachment to the subject, recuse yourself from editing. Final warning. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 11:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply from Saladdays I have participated in discussion here Arcana. I disagree with you and have said so and I have provided reasons. Your manner of attacking me really does not make me want to engage in dscussion with you. Please make your discussion about the topic and not about me and then I will discuss with you. Also please add your items to the bottom of the page in keeping with wikipedia protocol.--Saladdays 21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to state this for the last time. I'm not attacking you, that's just what's there for you in the space you've created. There's one requirement to write/edit: literacy and critical thinking. I can only suggest you do these things so many times before your involvement here becomes an impediment. I was a paid journalist, I understood wiki policy before wiki existed. I won't apologise for literacy and critical thinking: I'm taking a stand against those that choose not to. You mentioned wanting to discuss, and this is what I have steadfast suggested we do: discuss, not wholesale edits. Thanks and good luck in handling what's there for you. I hope by getting your attention with my headers, you have heard me and acknowledged the problem you are having. Your response today lets me know you are out of the always listening mode and vicious cycle of not discussing with others before mass-editing. Again, best wishes! Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 22:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * NOT having followed current events (recently) on this difficult and heartfelt article, I must say, Arcana, that you have made Saladdays's point for him/her/it in spades. Well done.  Nothing like wrapping a personal attack in a denial-of-personal-attack blanket (and YES, this is, essentially, a personal attack).  Now, LIGHTEN UP!!  Ratagonia 02:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, that's just what's there for you. There were no personal attacks, only observations about editing style and strong suggestions directing to policy. Be respectful of my space and my editing, which has been conservative and team-approach. Either you edit based on what's there for you personally, or you do it objectively. I prefer the latter. I noticed your strong suit of coming to Salad's defense. How's that working for you here? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum —Preceding comment was added at 02:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In looking over the history of this article one can see that over the last 6 - 8 months there were gradual edits made by several different editors to this article to get it to be more neutral in its point of view. Going into the history page and pulling out an old version from May is not considerate to the other editors who have put their time and thought into making this article worthy of a good encyclopedia. I see that despite your dislike of “wholesale” reversions, all of your edits have consisted of reverting to an older version full of misinformation and slanted language. I am merely putting back in place the article that was the result of gradual edits done by various editors over the last few months...--Saladdays 07:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the long history of this article, Arcana, of using questionable sourcing like "Outrageous Betrayal," an unsourced and unofficial biography, for alot of sensationalist tabloid-type writing unsuited for an encyclopedia. Massive changes have been made to revert the article to this obnoxious style and Saladdays is only reverting BACK to hard-won text that is reasoned, respectful of the subject and encyclopedic in tone.

Perhaps this is unclear to you as a newcomer?

The guidelines specifically express that: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"." Perhaps you could delineate where you are exercising the express mandate to "exercise particular care" and to "do no harm." For instance, the discussion about bigamy. Yes, the legal definition of bigamy is marrying someone when one has not divorced a prior marriage. At the same time, a more popular definition is "having two spouses at the same time" and implies sleeping with two wives over the same time period, and usually implies dishonesty. This is certainly not what happened, although there was an abandonment. But further, to describe this incident in his life as "bigamy" particularly without mentioning his later reconciliation with his first family is sensational and misses the point of the man's life and work which generally exhibits unusual, unexpected and even unprecedented possibilities in life. These show up specially in areas where gross harms and misunderstandings have occurred. In addition to reconciling with a first family that was admittedly, abandoned. The guy has done, by many accounts, effective work in prisons, with at-risk-youth and in alleviating starvation. In addition to being INACCURATE in it's implicatons, I would definitely say it DOES HARM to an individual who is still living. I am much more interested in individuals who embrace the flaws in themselves and others and find ways to do things differently in the end, than I am in anybody purporting a standard of perfection. I'd like to see more of this trait in our newcomer who calls him/herself by the first name "Arcana"Ftord1960 08:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At the same time, a more popular definition is "having two spouses at the same time" and implies sleeping with two wives over the same time period, and usually implies dishonesty. I have a hard time believing that you actually think that is a "more popular definition." Is that a new possibility you've created that hasn't caught on yet? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 08:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "(A) more popular definition is 'having two spouses at the same time' and implies sleeping with two wives over the same time period, and usually implies dishonesty." In what world is this a "more popular definition" than "bigamy" for describing the situation in which an individual has two spouses?  Everyone knows what "bigamy" means.  That is the legal term--the term the law uses to define the illegal conduct.  Moreover, "bigamy" and "polygamy" are readily understood by both members of the intelligentsia and the uneducated.  Both terms are commonly referenced in popular culture (i.e., Big Love, etc.). Bananafish00 04:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Bananafish, you are an attorney. I think your faith in the public's ability to discern the fine points in the differences between "bigamy" and "polygamy" is unfounded.  Not everyone reads the dictionaries like such wordsmiths as we.  that aside, the important point here is not the fine points of definition, but the broad stroke question of whether certain wordage could be interpreted in a harmful manner.--Ftord1960 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would venture the public knows more now given the recent arrest of Warren Jeffs and the endless television coverage for our non-readers. Nice try at justification, though Ford. It's weak but at least you tried. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 00:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bigamy vs. Polygamy, reply to Bananafish and Arcana

 * Dear Arcana, I see no argument that the highly publicized trial of Warren Jeffs bears any relevance to educating the public about the difference between bigamy and polygamy. Neither do I see the television show "Big Love" as having shed any light on the distinction.  Both deal with polygamy, and the Warren Jeffs case throttled us with tales of not only multiple wives but marriage to numerous underaged girls.  Neither of these have any bearing on Erhard's story and especially the Warren Jeff case only serves to inflame the public's understanding of any sort of marriage to multiple partners.  Erhard abandoned his first wife and married a second in what, from all documentation, seems to be a kind of serial monogamy. I have no problem with these facts being included.  Introducing the word bigamy, though legally correct, can imply keeping two wives at once, and could cause misunderstanding.  The current popular climate in which the public has been shocked by tales of multiple partners especially with reference to underaged girls, makes such possible misunderstandings especially dangerous.  My argument is against sensationalism and is proved stronger by references to recent pop culture phenomenon. --Ftord1960 (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Stating the act was a "bigamous marriage" is hardly controversial or sensationalistic for a man named Werner Erhard. If you feel that way, take a look at what's there for you. Pax Arcane 17:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and I'm not sure what you mean by the statement, "a man named Werner Erhard". Are you expressing some bias about the man?  Because "bigamous" can imply seeing two women at once, I think using the word can be misleading, especially under the current public climate of sensationalism, and I think it's better (more encyclopedic and more within the guidelines of Wiki) to simply state that he abondoned his first wife and took another.  It is very clear that he abandoned his wife, and not that he kept two at once.  What's "there for me" is a passion for well-written, un-biased and reasoned biography.  --Ftord1960 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't advocate referring to "bigamism" or even using the word "biganist" in this article. But we can tersely and accurately describe a bigamous marriage as such. The irrelevant and quite different moral panics of 2007 about polygamy have no direct bearing on the legal description of an instance of bigamy which started in 1960. -- Mischaracterizing the crime of bigamy as "a kind of serial monogamy" appears to confuse the legal status of marriage with the phenomenon of temporarily exclusive "relationships". -- The word "bigamy" and its derivatives could conceivably cause confusion. Do we therefore eschew the lexeme? -- or do we use it in a context with supporting detail which clarifies the meaning? -- The word "the" could conceivably cause confusion and offense. Saying "the" in phrases like "the United States" or "the United States of America" imply a definiteness and an exclusivity potentially distateful to citzens and partisans of other federations, whether in America or in Belgium. Do we therefore avoid the word "the"? Pedant17 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be concerned about this issue. The forced OTRS edits will only be temporary, rest assured. Pax Arcane (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pendant, concerned parties--

Personal bias, non-NPOV, and OR

 * Ford, I was reviewing this and wondering where your sources for thes statements come from. Like the "high road/low road" passage you wrote but then deleted, there seems to be some POV or OR concerning these assertations, as I've found no research that indicates any of it.


 * I find this part distressing as an NPOV editor because it shows a personal opinion about the person in the article, but not substantiated. If you can elaborate on any of these issues, I'd appreciate it. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it isn't necessary to substantiate discussion. But I'd like to honor the intention of your question.  It took me some time to think about where I'd gotten my impressions.  It was from an article entitled, "Life After Est" in a journal called Common Boundary by Dan Wakefield.

"He [Erhard] told the workshop participants, 'In Zen, they say there's the high road to enlightenment and the low road. I took the low road.  On the low road,  you do everything that doesn't work.' "

The place I read this article is at: http://www.wernererhard.com/boundary.html

I try to read both the sympathetic and unsympathetic to get some balance. Wakefield's article ends up on a positive note while extensively referencing Erhard's negative press. Neither, you might be interested to know, does he leave out the abandonment of his first wife. I find it more balanced than Pressman's work, which seems always to slant toward his sensational title "Outrageous Betrayal". Wakefield has some original (primary) sourcing of Werner Erhard's words too, which I'm thinking might be useful for the article. He says he allowed Werner to see the original quotes before publication. On the simplest level, most of us, if we've come into contact with the press at all, have experienced a journalist twisting our words. Many journalists have now abandoned the need to source their material and I believe this is something to really watch out for. For these reasons I give Wakefield's writings higher esteem than Pressman's, and am therefore more influenced by them.

We live in a time when the press circled New Orleans for days in helicopters while thousands suffered and hundreds perished in the floods caused by Hurricane Katrina without, apparently, a thought of trying to rescue anyone.

These are just a few of the reasons why I am a strong defender of Wiki's admonition to take special care with biographies of living people. Wiki is probably concerned with the more sensitive legal issues involved with living people. I'd like to see stronger care taken with topics of all kinds. This is my personal bent as an editor. Standards, scruples, and yes, sometimes an admiration for the subjects I stumble upon. Respectfully, --Ftord1960 (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ford, you respond like a candidate in a political debate. I actually bolded text for you to address. Instead you answered the question you wanted to answer. Amazing. Then a distraction about media. I already treid to explain the concept of "journalstic shield laws" that are part and parcel of free speech. From what you've written, I acknowledge you don't grasp the concept and are great at creating a long diversion. Anyway, there was some bolded text you could respond to. Or not. By not doing so you get to take a stand for not educating yourself further in media law or backing up the claims I have bolded that you have asserted. BTW... Call me "Pax." Pax Arcane (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the thing about "journalistic shield laws"? Missed that.  Didn't mean to ignore your bolded text.  I thought a general response took care of it.  I hardly think the media comments are divergent.  Wiki, though it's democratic aspirations are admirable and interesting, is especially vulnerable to the current climate of undocumented journalism that is so popular.  Perhaps you are so steeped in it that sensationalism is no longer recognizable.  What happened in Katrina is a perfect example of where the media focusses it's crazy priorities - covering the looters instead of helping people stranded on rooves in 90 degree heat FOR DAYS.

The alleviating starvation part is about Erhard's role in the Hunger Project, which I gleaned from reading material on the web. The Hunger Project is mentioned in this very article as a group started by Werner Erhard and the webpage is: http://www.thp.org/ that's a place to start, and then reading the other references on google etc.. It is important to read the background material on a biography and not just it's points of controversy. A place to start with the "At Risk Youth" theme is to the links on the Werner Erhard site to something called the "breakthrough foundation": http://www.wernererhard.com/charitable.html#The_CareGivers_Project  and a place to start on the prison topic is again from the werner erhard website:  http://www.wernererhard.com/charitable.html and other references like that of Steward Esposito:  http://www.answers.com/topic/stewart-esposito. I've also read the Bartley Book and to start with on Page 9 he talks about how Erhard led people in est to work in 5 different prisons so effectively that they received federal funding. I've found references to these projects continuing as I'm sure you will if you choose to do any real research.

It is a strange phenomenon that it seems easier to document controversy than actual accomplishment. I find that in other topics I'm working on on Wiki. Erhard is especially difficult as he hasn't published formally, so articles are the best source for his words. And I think works count too, though documentation is not always obvious or easy. Perhaps this is why this article seems to so easily sway to the negative bias. I wonder, too, in some of your responses, whether you've read any of the words of the man himself, which is important and (dare I say?) central to biography. For instance, did you read the Wakefield article I referenced? You make no comment as such, and it is the direct reference to the "low road" comment you seemed to find so curious. It has direct quotes of Erhard which I think are an important impression of the man.

I have not been inspired to adopt your new name. I find your responses do not make for dialogue which I believe intrinsic for "Pax". Don't give up. I didn't mean to be rude to a newcomer, but I make no claim to something as noble as "pax" at this point in this editting project. I will "fight" for encyclopedic writing about people both living and dead. --Ftord1960 02:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Fight" or "taking a stand"? I have no idea what the coverage of a national disaster has with Werner Erhard. The Katrina red-herring is probably an insult to those that were there. I've read the stuff you've read. I did read the Wakefield article. It's a nice way of changing events through language (it didn't happen this way...it actually happened this way! I've "created possibility!"). I would think if you wanted to go with direct quotes from Erhard, there are a couple of really embarrassing he's said publicly (with pride) that rival George Bush's gaffes. It's difficult to take any of the things that he's said seriously, so I focus on the historical aspect, as his behavior has reflected the majority of his baffling statements. I'm not here to judge. I'm just here to get factual info into the article. The whole balance thing.
 * Unfortunately, there's nothing in print to back up the prison thing actually working out. They got funding, sure did. They got the money, this is true. Prisoners dropped out like flies. It was a complete failure, per most accounts, and it is embarrassing to read an experienced editor to this article almost beam about referencing.
 * The Hunger Project as it was handled by Erhard was one of the neatest con-jobs I've ever read about. I was delighted to find the source of inspiration for George Costanza's "The Human Fund"! With Erhard at the helm, it was as equally embarrassing as his work in prisons, per others' accounts. About both these topics, I suggest you read non-werner approved material. And something printed. The internet is a horrible place for research. But the non werner-approved stuff...I suggest you read it. It's good for critical thinking and an important part of writing. Thinking critically. There's no "fight" in writing. I'm sorry you feel this way. Your statements become more and more tinted.
 * Is there anything I missed? Journalistic shield laws exist to protect confidential sources and those that write what those sources say. Part of Amendment ONE in this country. If you have any further questions or comments, I'll be here all day. Pax Arcane 02:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would welcome citations in the article from Dan Wakefield's article "Life After Est" published in Common Boundary: Between Spirituality and Psychotherapy in March-April 1994. Preferably such citations should come directly from the original rather than from a -- shall we say -- partisan web-site (not a reliable source). Any such citations would need to establish the credentials of Wakefield and Common Boundary as reliable sources, especially in the light of Wakefield's self-confessed bias and reverential attitude in the matter of his subject.  It might help to explain why one should trust Wakefield's journalism rather than (say) Pressman's research. And Wakefield's opinions should stand alongside the references from Pressman (and others) rather than replacing them silently. In this way a  neutral point of view could emerge from comparisons and contrasts. -- Pedant17 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Might I remind you all again
Pressman is a reliable source. Period. It's not a work of fiction. And it's more current than what Bartley (sic) wrote back in the 70s. Enough with this using an older source rather than an accurate and current one with the argument Pressman was inaccurate. He did more research than the author from the 70s and more in-depth. I don't care if the editors here can't stand the truth. I have no tolerance for laziness. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 04:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bardini and Friedewald cite the book in their analysis of Erhard Seminars Training, in History of Technology[1]. Outrageous Betrayal is also cited in Anderson's The Next Enlightenment[2], Jenkins' Mystics and Messiahs[3], Janja Lalich's Bounded Choice[4], Yalom's The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy[5], Weiten's Psychology Applied to Modern Life[6], Weiner's Battling the Inner Dummy[7], Palm's The Great California Story[8], Milton's [9], and Lalich's Take Back Your Life[10]
 * I respectfully but strongly disagree. Unless you are Steven Pressman himself - you simply can't say that he did more research than Bartley. Regardless of who thinks it is true and who thinks it is false, the book makes all kinds of assertions and cites virtually NO references and as such it meets a much lower standard than Wikipedia itself.  It makes no sense to have an article require so many references only to use one that has none itself. Ebay3 18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed above before. I'll quote it again so that you can re-read it. ''Now let's examine Steven Pressman's book: Pressman, Steven, Outrageous Betrayal: The dark journey of Werner Erhard from est to exile. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993. ISBN 0-312-09296-2 as a claimed example of a non-"good quality source". An objection against this work's reliability states that the book lacks citations. Given its status as a mainstream work coming out of investigative journalism with a presumed interest in protecting its sources, one need not expect thorough citations; nor does Wikipedia:Verifiability insist on this criterion. The fact that the book does feature items of critical apparatus like footnotes and notes on sources counts as a bonus when dealing with a non-academic work on subjects relating to contemporary popular culture. (Remember, Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.") -- The claim that "Pressman's book has no ... fact checking or editorial oversight" does not seem plausible. Pressman worked and works as a journalist in legal and investigative work. We can presume some familiarity with the arts of fact-checking. And he published with a reputable mainstream publishing-house, St. Martin's Press. If any evidence exists that St. Martin's Press omitted its legal vetting and editorial supervision in the case of this legally provocative and occasionally controversial book, let's see it. -- So far, the Pressman book appears as a good-quality source, but wait: the Wikipedia article on Outrageous Betrayal itself claims that the book appears cited in a variety of other worthy and prominent places:

Almost makes Pressman's Outrageous Betrayal sound like what WP:SOURCES calls a "respected mainstream publication" in some circles! -- certainly not quite the sort of reaction one would expect to a so-called "novel" that nevertheless appears in serious libraries catalogued and filed under non-fiction codes (Dewey Decimal Classification: 158; Library of Congress Classification: RC489) The more we look into the matter, the more difficult it appears to dismiss this particular work as not a "good quality source". But even if the book had fewer virtues, its place as a detailed account of much of the goings on in the career of Rosenberg/Erhard remains unparalleled. We have the case of a relatively minor contemporary figure (Rosenberg/Erhard) who has largely escaped the attention of serious academic biographers, especially in the later stages of his activity. Pending the writing or locating of better sources, we need to cite Outrageous Betrayal as a balancing to the hagiographic (though often poorly sourced) literature on Rosenberg/Erhard, in order to obtain a neutral article covering the multiple existing points of view. And even the current brief versions of the article, in their truncated and mangled state, do not hesitate to cite Pressman. I entirely support the doctrine of "doing no harm" in biographies. Hence the requirements of balance and the exposure of some of the more insidious ideas and practices put about in the name of Rosenberg/Erhard call for well-cited detail. If a citation appears poorly-sourced, we need to cite it better, not conclude necessarily that the source does not measure up. Let's not confuse a "poorly sourced" citation with unreliable sources. The meaning of the reference to "going back through the history and sticking up an old article" escapes me. The negation of "the hours and thoughtful editing that have gone into contributing to writing a good article" shows most blatantly in the unjustified and disrespectful deletion of valuable and thoroughly-sourced material. I look forward to discussion of individual points of detail as to why we should not expand and enhance the article with the material available -- material banished for too long from playing its part in an accurate and balanced article. -- Pedant17 03:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

^ Bardini, Thierry & Friedewald, Michael (2002), Chronicle of the Death of a Laboratory, vol. 23 (History of Technology ed.),  ^ Anderson, Walter Truett (2003). The Next Enlightenment: Integrating East and West in a New Vision of Human Evolution. St. Martin's Press, 254. ISBN 0312317697. ^ Jenkins, Philip (2000). Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History. Oxford University Press, 270. ISBN 0195127447. ^ Lalich, Janja (2004). Bounded choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults. University of California Press, 284. ISBN 0520231945. ^ Yalom, Irvin D. (1995). The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy. Basic Books, 584. ISBN 0465084486. ^ Weiten, Wayne; Margaret A. Lloyd (2005). Psychology Applied To Modern Life: Adjustment In The 21st Century. Thomson Wadsworth, 596. ISBN 0534608590. ^ Weiner, David L. (October 1999). Battling the Inner Dummy: The Craziness of Apparently Normal People. Prometheus Books, 393, 397. ISBN 978-1573927475. ^ Palm, Carl (August 30, 2004). The Great California Story: Real-life Roots Of An American Legend. Northcross Books. ISBN 978-0975483213. ^ title Milton, Joyce (July 15, 2002). The Road to Malpsychia: Humanistic Psychology and Our Discontents. Encounter Books. ISBN 978-1893554467. ^ Lalich, Janja (May 30, 2006). Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships. Bay Tree Publishing. ISBN 978-0972002158.

Biographies like Pressman's Outrageous Betrayal cover more ground than "events that happened or supposedly happened" -- they add color and interpretation and explanation and comment. You don't expect detailed sourcing for all that: you take it as a package and judge the work as a whole on its consistency and its match with other known facts. -- If we need to re-shape the technical Wikipedia-internal definition of what Wikipedians should treat as a "reliable source", I suggest we need to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. It might have consequences like banning the Bible as a source for Near East history, or forbidding the use of the US Declaration of Independence as a document of political theory. -- Note that some of Pressman's material used in the writing of the book gets labeled as from "confidential sources". Such sources by their nature generate few footnotes. But Pressman published the information: if he or his informants got the details wrong, we need to see plausible evidence to the contrary from sources of equal or greater merit. -- I googled "outrageous betrayal" and failed to stumble on anything noticeably sinister. If a reliable source exists on the use of Pressman's Outrageous Betrayal in ways reminiscent of the use of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I suggest a mention in the article on Outrageous Betrayal. -- Pedant17 04:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)''


 * Pendant's spot-on. You can disagree and are allowed your opinion, but that's just what's there for you. I respectfully ask you to leave your personal opinion and feelings out of the editing process. Just the facts, man. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 19:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is pretty widespread concensus in the world at large that history and encyclopedias should be based on events that happened, and not on books filled with "interpretation, color, explanation and comment." as Pressman's book is described above.--Saladdays 01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is disturbing that you continue to speak for other people and make sweeping generalisations without backing any of it up. How this is helpful in editing Wiki is beyond me, but maybe an admin can give you some advice. Create that possibility for yourself. Have a great day and happy editing! Respectfully-- Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Ratagonia, Saladays, Ftord1960
Rat, Ford, Salad...Especially Ford. I have done no major revisions that you speak of. I reverted text someone else was working on so that I could see the finished project. Ford, from your tone, as well as Salad's, I see you seem to have a very warm, personal connection to the subject of the article. Unfortunately, this is making your statements sound completely non-objective. Ford, you're cherry-picking the WP:BLP document as well. I'm really not interested in the defenses you use of denial, rationalization, minimization, and justification in regards to the subject or your thoughts on writing. Erhard is in no harm, I can probably assure you that...but you all seem to be able to ascertain that better than I, apparently. I hear the unfortunate sounds of an apologist from you, Ford. A testimonial, even. So all three of you editors have shown where you stand with the subject, and it doesn't seem to be able to allow you to be objective. I guess we'll have to go the MedCab route. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Arcane, still don't hear any concern on your part for the Wiki policies to be upheld in the area of harm or care with regard to living persons in this Encyclopedia. I don't think I've cherry-picked, only concerned with a few important cherries which you seem to want to overlook.
 * Oh, as I've said and as you guys know, he's very safe and well-taken care of overseas. He's in no harm, and I'm sure you could give me more info on that than I could, Ford.  WP:BLP- Well known public figures: In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Have a nice day! Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 00:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am most definitely no apologist. I do admire those who hold themselves to account. How about you? Are you sure that you are completely objective on these topics? I count admiration as an important attribute in all pursuits, intellectual or otherwise. I admire your tenacity. I only encourage self-reflection. I am OK with the facts being included about Erhard's early abandonment of his first family. I am loath to think that someone could go away from a Wiki page, not having read the whole article, with the impression that Werner Erhard advocated bigamy. This would be INACCURATE whether you admire the man or not. Are you sure that the word "bigamist" is meant without harm? If you have made no major revisions, I stand corrected. Please think about the whole world in which people read these pages. "wiki wiki" is an adage for our age. There are both great advantages and great pitfalls to it. You are welcome here as a new editor, to join us in the interesting and stimulating endeavor of painting history. I only ask that you be aware of the power of this medium, and listen, kind fellow, to the words of those who've been at it a little longer. --Ftord1960 22:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Shame, Ford. I am loath to think that someone could go away from a Wiki page, not having read the whole article, with the impression that Werner Erhard advocated bigamy. This would be INACCURATE whether you admire the man or not. Nowhere does this article ever indicate Erhard said he advocated bigamy. As for other readers fleeing, they have choice, not decision...I feel bad for them, those who choose not to read. People can read whatever thy want to and not read whatever they want to. Ford, I don't paint history. I just report the facts, man. Pressman is a good legal reporter, and I appreciate journalist/source confidentiality and shield laws. So does the Constitution, Harvard, and now in this digital age, the EFF. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 23:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ford
You added some great text but deleted it. What's going on?

''He then left his first wife and family in Philadelphia and traveled west with Jane Bryde. He changed his name to "Werner Hans Erhard". Rosenberg chose his new names from Esquire magazine articles he read about the then-West German economics minister Ludwig Erhard and the philosopher and physicist Werner Heisenberg. June Bryde changed her name to "Ellen Virginia Erhard", and she and Werner Erhard were married. The newly-renamed Erhards moved to St. Louis. It is true that Rosenberg/Erhard did not divorce his first wife before marrying his second. In later speeches to participants in his trainings Erhard would often refer to these occurrences as an example of his taking "the low road" in his early life and this being "where I learned".''

It was an excellent passage and great wording, then you took it out. It was well-written! Explain, please. I thought it was good. You had quotes and everything, and your passage put everything into perspective. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Saladays, Ftord1960
Discuss before trying to sneak in your edits or push your POV stuff elsewhere. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

MedCab Failure
OK, it looks like SebastianHelm is throwing in the towel for reasons unknown to me ending this and I completely understand why. We're going to have to start over with this. I find no reason that the Pressman book is anything other than non-fiction. Some sources are unverifiable to us as per journalistic shield laws that have been upheld in court specifically to Pressman's book. These are the facts and they stand as they are. I agree some editors dislike Pressman's book. This is not a rationale for edits, however. There needs to be discussion to reach consensus on edits, as I have previously stated in editing this article. Can we agree to that? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Great edits
Pendant17, thanks for taking the initiative in a N:POV edit process that takes all of the previous editing problems and nips them in the bud, in a tasteful manner with excellent prose. Congrats for wading through this difficult area and cleaning up the article! Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Flow, great work on the edits and refs! Although I'm having similar problems on the Landmark Education page, I'm watching what you do and how you set stuff up. Part of the learning process. Pax Arcane 23:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ACK! What did I mess up here with with this duplicated text in Werner Erhard? Flowanda | Talk 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * These pages have been edited so many times, a lot got lost on stuff done in haste. It's just going to take time. Pax Arcane 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Saladdays, I'm not following your rationale for your recent edits. Please explain. Pax Arcane (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I just LOVE how you and Ford speed-edit without bothering to use the discussion page for consensus. This brute-force editing is highly valued on Wiki!!!! Keep up your strong suits!!!Pax Arcane (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ford, thanks for proving my point. You find the discussion to this article completely irrelevant and have shown as such repeatedly. Keep up the good work! Pax Arcane (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * sigh* gone is that momentary respite when not every little edit had to be argued and defended.--Ftord1960 (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Translations needed or citations need removal
http://www.agpf.de/Erhard-Kult.htm AGPF web-page on Erhard, est etc]: "1967 absolviert er ein Verkaufstraining bei Dale Carnegie und einige andere Kurse in Gestalt-Therapie und Transaktionsanalyse

and

http://www.agpf.de/Erhard-Kult.htm AGPF web-page on Erhard, est etc]: "1963 nimmt Erhard an Esalen-Seminaren teil. Er trifft Fritz Perls und ist in mehreren Selbsterfahrungs- und Bewußtseins-Gruppen (Encounter Training)."

Salad, you speak and traslate German? Pax Arcane (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I took out these references, and the text they supported. I think we should stick to English references unless and until these are available in translation.--Ftord1960 (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If Saladays included them, he must have translation, wouldn't you think? You trust his edits and why would this be a problem now? -- Pax Arcane  03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Translations provided for restoration of material and citations
"1967 absolviert er ein Verkaufstraining bei Dale Carnegie und einige andere Kurse in Gestalt-Therapie und Transaktionsanalyse"

Translation: "In 1967 he completed a Dale Carnegie sales cource and several other courses in Gestalt therapy and in Transactional Analysis."

"1963 nimmt Erhard an Esalen-Seminaren teil. Er trifft Fritz Perls und ist in mehreren Selbsterfahrungs- und Bewußtseins-Gruppen (Encounter Training)."

Translation: "In 1963 Erhard took part in some Esalen seminars. He met Fritz Perls and became involved in several Self-awareness and Consciousness Groups (Encounter Training)."

E&OE. I call on User:AJackl, who has expertise in such matters, to verify/correct my translations from the German.

The paraphrases in the article prior to 2007-12-21 provided an almost exact translation. The material and the references will get restored now?

-- Pedant17 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion from 60 Minutes section
I'm not sure what the last paragraph was trying to contribute with this:

An August 2002 ABC News report refers to allegations by one of Erhard's daughters, but does not address allegations made by other persons, including another Erhard daughter.

The cite was to a place in the story that reads:

"Erhard retreated into seclusion after a tax dispute with the IRS and being accused of incest by his daughter. She later recanted her allegations of abuse, and the U.S. government ultimately paid Erhard $200,000 over statements the IRS made while he was being investigated. EST accused the Church of Scientology of masterminding a smear campaign against Erhard, a charge which Scientology rejects."

There is no context in this section for discussion of the allegations of another daughter. --Ftord1960 (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm there with you...I haven't the slightest about that or how it came from ABC news. Let's both take a look at the possible sources and discuss it further. Cheers! -- Pax Arcane  01:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But if it was reported by a reputable news agency, it is notable. LE 2020 is a big thing for you, and at the head office, the pressure to get these edits must be tremendous, but facts are facts. What happened is what happened. -- Pax Arcane  03:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Sixty Minutes broadcast contained allegations of incest and abuse originating from two of "Erhard"'s daughters, as previous versions of the article made clear. A statement by one daughter concerning the exaggeration of details does not count as a recantation of all of the allegations from each of the daughters. -- Piecemeal removal of details from the article does not help maintain a helpful context. I propose we restore such details to preclude misunderstandings. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

John Edward Mack
Seems as though the important connection to John Edward Mack has been swept under the rug. Any takers? -- Pax Arcane  05:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC) BTW, this is why anyone would want the Esalen material to vanish.-- Pax Arcane  23:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What is this connection to J. H. Mack? Pax Arcane's comment without more leaves a bit of innuendo that may not be intended. E.g. Are you trying to imply that John Paul (Jack) Rosenberg (aka Werner Hans Erhard), and his followers (Today's Landmark Forum Leaders and participants) are influenced by  alien abductions or the psychological phenomenon of alien abduction syndrome? Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquamagi101 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. Mack fell under the influence by zeitgest, unfortunately, meaning smart people do stupid things when everyone else is caught up in it.Mack was a trainer for est and, as Mack's colleagues have suggested, easily suckered by Erhard. Mack gave Erhard some degree of legitimacy. Unfortunately, Mack was really, really gullible to anything most humans would consider asinine or a complete waste. Fortunately for Erhard, Mack helped est along. John Mack had his moment of brilliance when young, but people have suggested that once he got in bed with Werner, so to speak, it was the begin of his decline. At any rate, they met at Esalen, and there are some MKULTRA connections thereabouts. -- Pax Arcane  00:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have the Esalen/Mack/Watts sources so I'll be adding them it. -- Pax Arcane  23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cayman Islands
"Landmark founder lives reclusively in the Cayman Islands

NEW JERSEY, USA: Cult News, March 1, 2006 – ...a former car and encyclopedia salesman, who later changed his name to “Werner Erhard.”

The papers formalizing the sale of EST are now accessible online through the Internet, complete with payment records. Erhard, who is now an old man, lives reclusively with his girlfriend in the Cayman Islands at George Town."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pax Arcane (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Early influences
I know Werner had more influences than what we can list in scope, but the ones up in my revert are relavent. If there's a sourcing problem, we should discuss that. Saladdays, I'm not totally cool with the re-write, I think the current is fine, but needs minor tweaking. Compromise? -- Pax Arcane  20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Salad, when you removed the Watts/Erhard neighbors mention, it was because of "citation needed" when it was already sourced. An anonymous editor inserted a break that said "fact date jan 2008" and you edited today based on that. Swatjester reverted me back to what looks like a vandal edit. Anyway. It's sourced in Bartley, but I have a book on cults and an article in a marriage and family counseling journal that say the same thing if Bartley isn't good enough for y'all. Comment back. -- Pax Arcane  23:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pressman's Book
I've once again changed the article from describing Pressman's book as a biography. The library of congress does not list this book as a biography! This book doesn't deal with Werner Erhard's life, it deals with, as the title suggests an "Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile". Whether his journey from est to exile was an, "outrageous betrayal" is a matter of opinion, and clearly the book does not deal with the life of the man. This book deals with the story from est to exile with a title that communicates a particular opinion.--Ftord1960 (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, BUT-- Your org signed a legally binding document in a settlement with CAN that said the book was a biography. Reading below, I could care less what other critics of the book have to say. That stuff belongs on the book's wiki page, a page about a BIOGRAPHY. This smacks of the censorship your org is notorious for. -- Pax Arcane  03:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You've heard of intellectual biographies and literary biographies and psychological biographies/ psychobiographies and philosophical biographies -- now welcome to guru-biographies or scam-biographies. Pressman's account to Rosenberg's career (or even his "life") covers -- broadly chronologically -- the events and the ideas and the organizations  and the people involved in the "Werner Erhard" phase of Rosenberg's existence up to the early 1990s. As such, it provides the most wide-ranging and thorough available biographical information on "Werner Erhard" for the period. It even uses the beloved metaphor of a "journey" for a vita. Wikipedia, like the elements within Landmark Education who tried to suppress Pressman's work (see page 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 2006-11-20), can safely and accurately refer to it, in brief, as a "biography". Any objections? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out these quotes from F.A.C.T. (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network Since 1993):

"Mud-slinging expos‚ of the notorious pop guru who ``got it''- -and then tried to give it to the rest of the world. As his title makes clear, Pressman (a former writer for California Lawyer) makes no pretense to objectivity here"


 * Strip down the rhetoric: "expos of the ... guru". Do you detect anything incompatible with a "biography" in that? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"What the author dramatically fails to provide by bearing down on the negative (to the extent that nearly all his informants denounce est and its founder) is any real understanding of est's teachings--and of why they appealed so deeply to so many."
 * If Pressman had paid less attention to the doings of "Erhard" and more to the so-called "teachings" and their apparent "appeal", that might marginally strengthen a case against terming Outrageous Betrayal a biography. But he didn't and it doesn't.-- Pedant17 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.factnet.org/cults/landmark/Recommended_Books_on_EST.htm --Ftord1960 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If a case exists for the view that Outrageous Betrayal does not deal with Rosenberg's "life" and should not come into the category "Biographies (books)", I suggest that we resolve this issue at the Outrageous Betrayal Talk-page. In the meantime, let's give prominence to the most thorough biography of 'Werner Erhard" as a biography . -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing Comment: "Biographies: LE acknwldgd in CAN setlmnt this is a biography" I don't believe Wikipedia signed onto that agreement. Quite frankly, whether LE and CAN agreed to that or not is very much beside the point. Does it fit the wiki definition of a Biography? I think the answer is NO, because it carries such an "outrageous" chip on its shoulder, from page 1 (or page ix, as the case may be). It IS a strongly negative POV expose book, and should be used in this article sparingly, if at all. Me, I cannot get worked up whether it is listed as a 'biography' - not too important. I, too, think we should give prominence to the "most thorough biography of Werner Erhard" - Bartley's book. Ratagonia (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So the oldest one is the MOST thorough? I've read both books and one is lacking in info, the other isn't. -- Pax Arcane  18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Left vs. Abandoned for First family
As much as I am on record as a fan of Werner, the word "abandon" is used for the act Jack perpetrated on the first wife. Let's go with abandoned, and not keep flipping back and forth on this picayune point. Ratagonia (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

External links are inappropriate for See also section
Please see WP:ALSO. The See also section is for internal links only. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Self-promotional / advertising / spam links to blogs should be removed from External links section

 * 1) Conversations For Transformation: Essays By Laurence Platt Inspired By The Ideas of Werner Erhard, And More — a friend of Werner Erhard interprets Erhard's work.
 * 2) Werner Erhard and est Blog
 * 3) Werner Erhard Foundation
 * 4) Werner Erhard page at Working Minds website

These are all self-promotional / advertising / spam links to blogs and personal websites and should be removed. So far as I can tell, the only "official" website of Werner Erhard is: That is, unless anyone can show that the four above links are also "official" links of Werner Erhard, and are not personal websites from individuals? Please see WP:LINKSTOAVOID -- ''11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.'' Cirt (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Werner Erhard Biographical Website

They all obviously violate WP:LINKSTOAVOID, and should not be included. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the two sites, Werner Erhard and est and Werner Erhard Foundation and I don't see that they violate any wikipedia policies. They look like they add useful information from valid sources that readers would find interesting. In wiki guidelines, the section of what links TO INCLUDE says:
 * Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons.
 * Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article.
 * Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.--Saladdays (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment


 * Support Deletion. These are blogs, and are Viewpoint specific.  Possibly includable on the est page, but certainly not here.  I would like to see more rigor applied to the sources in 'these articles'; thus let's clean off these questionable links. People can find them on Google if they really want to. Ratagonia (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Deletion. Ratagonia, we DO have something in common. I don't support the blog inclusion either.  Pax Arcane  22:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality issues and reference
I've refrained from editing the passage, but the section reading "In the 1970s, the self-help program called est (Erhard Seminars Training) assisted hundreds of thousands of people to gain control of their lives. The media however focused on snippets of what they heard about the methods of the program and completely ignored the results" hardly seems neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.198.52 (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that wording is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. May I suggest something like this in an effort to keep the statement and alter its bias to reflect is obvious source: "The self-help program called est (Erhard Seminars Training) claims to have assisted hundreds of thousands of people to gain control of their lives in the 1970's. EST insists that in spite of this claim, the media have focused on snippets of what they heard about the methods of the program and completely ignored the results"

followed of course by a cite, perhaps on their website?

Mrrealtime (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of car-related material
ON 2007-11-30 at 0145 hours, a Wikipedian removed reference to Rosenberg's use of the nickname "Jack Frost" during the period when he sold cars, adding the edit-summary: "Name-changes: Jack Frost was a nickname, not a name change". On the same day, at 0427 hours, the same editor removed the section which had contained that information, stating in the edit-summary: "Name-changes: redundant section. All this is included in following sections." The reasoning of the one edit-summary undercuts the reasoning of the other. I propose restoring information on Rosenberg's connections with automobiles -- an important and well-documented theme in our subject's mythos. We also need to cross-reference/support the article on Jack Frost, which records this episode. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Impact"
The "Impact" section reads like an advertisement - the language and syntax sounds like it was written by a promotional publicity officer - and it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with User:Cirt's view that this section reads like an advertisement. The citations need to include extensive quoting to establish the accuracy and relevance of the claims made. -- For the sake of achieving a neutral point of view, any such section would also need to include more balance: we could revive the more varied former "Public perception" section (a version of [[2007-11-17 contained: == Public perception ==

People characterize Werner Erhard in sharply different ways. A self-published work by Espy and Robert Navarro portrays him as a leading-edge thinker in the field of human performance and effectiveness. Nevertheless, some dismiss him as a "car salesman" or more generically as a "salesman". Others emphasise his continuing commercial success and describe him as a "businessman". Est-advocates in the heyday of that organization came to regard "Werner" as "Source". Some detractors emphasize his background as an ex-Scientologist, \u2014 even an expelled Scientologist or label him as a "guru" or as a "cult leader" or associate him with a "cult" (in the sociological sense).

Evaluating Erhard within the context of the self-help movement, Steve Salerno in his book SHAM sees him as: "too flaky [...] to capture the popular imagination." Attempts such as that of McCarl et al to associate the name of Werner Erhard with philosophy have not yet succeeded in making him part of the philosophical mainstream. His small body of written thought, such as the terse Aphorisms booklet (If God Had Meant Man to Fly, He Would Have Given Him Wings; or: Up to Your Ass in Aphorisms), once distributed to est-students, have had resonance mainly in New-Age circles. Some have come to stress his role as an "educator". -- and merge the two strands, adding in commentary such as that of Goffman: 'Westerners who have witnessed several generations of spiritual and psychological mindfuckers -- the gurus and the Werner Erhard types who proved to be in it for money and power -- are understandably cautious about surrendering to a "master".' (Goffman, Ken: Counterculture through the ages: from Abraham to Acid House. New York: Villard, 2004. ISBN 0-375-50758-2, page 112; or academic evaluations such as: "The psychiatrist Marc Galanter described Erhard as "a man with no formal experience in mental health, self help, or religious revivalism, but a background in retail sales." -- Marc Galanter:  Cults: faith, healing, and coercion. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. ISBN 9780195056310, page 80. -- To follow the flow of the article and the conventions of such articles, any "Impact" section should move to nearer the end, after the biographical details. And any manifestation of the current version would require editing to remove the weasel words. -- We should also inquire into whether celebrity endorsements count as reliable sources. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The bigamous marriage
At 0433 hours on 2007-11-30 a Wikipedian removed a reference to Rosenberg's bigamous marriage, adding the edit-summary: 'removed "bigamously" see discussion'.

The discussion on the alleged connotations of the words "bigamist" and "bigamism" in the talk-page (since archived as Talk:Werner Erhard/Archive 2) does not preclude the accurate legal use of the the word "bigamous" with reference to Rosenberg's "marriage" using a false identity as "Curt Wilhelm VonSavage" in Bel Air, Maryland on 1 April 1960. (See for example http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3858&Itemid=12, retrieved on 2008-08-11; as well as Pressman, Steven, Outrageous Betrayal: The dark journey of Werner Erhard from est to exile. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993. ISBN 0-312-09296-2, page 6.) I propose that we restore the information on Rosenberg's bigamy.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Ross Institute Internet Archives
This link should be retained in the External links subsection of this article. The non-profit organization is an Internet archive resource and is officially registered as a library resource in the state of New Jersey. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 1 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


 * I am removing the link from the External Links section. This is not an appropriate external link to have on this article as it is NOT a neutral site and it does have an agenda.  Rick Ross is not a non profit organization.  He "specializes in garnering media attention to create fear and suspicion in the family members of individuals in minority religious groups. He then exploits this fear to get them to pay him thousands of dollars in fees to coerce people out of their chosen religious affiliation." You can read more here http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/false-experts/rick-ross/ Barnham (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really the most reliable website you are citing there, to say the least. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing the external link to Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates at 0014 hours on 2008-09-03 without allowing more than one minute for discussion hardly promotes Wiki-collegiality and encyclopedic balance. -- The site referenced has about as much neutrality as the other external links within the Werner Erhard article, but with the additional advantage of reflecting sometimes critical views rather than overwhelmingly hagiographic gushing. -- The Ross Institute site has an agenda just as much as any website has an agenda: it aims to inform. That does not make it an automatic candidate for removal. On the contrary, given the variety of links and the thoroughness of its coverage, the linked page deserves to head up the External links section as the representative of majority opinion on the subject-matter in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines on external links. -- The statement that "Rick Ross is not a non profit organization" appears to fail to distinguish between the individual  Rick Ross and the actual publisher of the linked page; the Rick A. Ross Institute, a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) public charity. That Institute retains the right to publish regardless of smears from its enemies such as Religious Freedom Watch, which as a Scientology-oriented body has an understandable interest in undermining the work of the Rick A. Ross Institute. -- I suggest that we restore the external link to http://www.rickross.com/groups/est.html -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of aliases, disguised identities and noms de guerre
At 1607 hours on 2007-11-30 a Wikipedian removed reference to a couple of Rosenberg's other aliases. Such removal of documented patterns of changes of name makes for an incomplete article: the past becomes opaque to readers and obscured for researchers. Just like the name switch to "Werner Hans Erhard" -- and just as unofficial, it seems -- the use of other aliases and cover-names tell a story of significance and relevance. Given this, and in the light of the progress of discussions on the archived Talk-page, I propose that we now restore such information -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of mention of Rosenberg's bigamous marriage
At 2243 hours on 2007-11-30 a Wikipedian removed reference to Rosenberg's bigamous marriage. Without such information in the article we can end up with the misleading implication in the current version of the article that Rosenberg divorced in 1960. Without such information the article loses depth of insight into the renaming of Rosenberg as Erhard -- an important step in the development of his persona. Let's restore this important data in the understanding and tracing of the subject's biography, referencing the scanned image-copy of the marriage-certificate and Pressman's detailed account (see ) as documentary evidence of the deception and the aliases involved. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * These notations to talk pages are indeed helpful and a positive contribution, but in addition to that you could also be bold and add the info to the article itself, properly sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources of course. Cirt (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Awards/acknowledgements
It's quite a stretch to include a spattering of acknowledgments, one from a mention in a book and one listing in a course, as worthy of note in an encyclopedic article. How many people would be acknowledged in books yet we would consider that hardly worthy of including in a full biography, let alone an encyclopedic article.

Furthermore, isn't it strange then to be left with two awards: one by an organisation he founded; and one by an organisation known to be a scam?

Shouldn't, therefore, the whole section go? ProlixDog (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good ideas, all. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Ratagonia (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of link to Scientology and Werner Erhard
On November 30, 2007 at 2244 hours a Wikipedian removed from the "Scientology" sub-section of the article a link to the main article on the very subject of Werner Erhard and Scientology: the article "Scientology and Werner Erhard", commenting in the edit-summary "link already in article". This deletion broke the main linkage to a subsidiary source of information and has resulted in a mere "See also" link, out of context and obscured. The See also style guideline reminds us of the subsidiary function of a "See also" section; while the Layout guideline encourages the use of section-specific links to daughter-articles per Summary style. Let's restore the link to its logical and useful place in the structure of the article using (say) the "Main" template. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do so yourself if you feel it was inappropriately removed. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of information on other courses
On November 30, 2007 at 2245 hours, a Wikipedian removed the sentence "Other courses developed to supplement the basic est course" with the edit summary "sentence didn't belong here". The sentence related to the section ("The era of the est training (1971-1984)". But contemporary evidence suggests that such courses did exist, and in that era: see: Let's restore this informative expansion of the theme that Erhard developed educational programs. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of citation detail
On 2 Dec 2007 at 2255 hours a Wikipedian removed a quote and abbreviated a citation from The Believer on the subject of the fate of the archive of the 60 Minuutes broadcast of 1991-03-03. Given the amount of linkrot about and the requirements for accurate and clear sourcing, let's restore the content and detail of the full citation as for example:

Due to alleged "factual discrepancies" CBS deleted its archive of this program.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information by Theeld
and - Twice now new account/WP:SPA  has removed information from this article backed up to multiple secondary sources which satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. This information is highly pertinent and relevant to this article, and sourced, and should not be removed from the article. Cirt (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed poor source
Removed = source that fails WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of public perception
On December 5, 2007 a Wikipedian removed a section from the article, complaining in the edit-summary: "Public perception: There shouldn't be a category called public perception in a biography…it is subjective and can’t be substantiated". Since we want to write a high-quality encyclopedia article (rather than some mere biography) and since documented statements by citable observers (rather than any "truth") form the very essence of Wikipedia, I propose we restore/expand this deleted material, perhaps under the alternative rubric of "Reactions to Erhard-thought", thus at a minimum:

Martin Gardner characterized Erhard in 1976 as "a former Scientologist (the church expelled him in 1971), now running a movement of his own called est (Erhard Seminars Training), designed to to raise the consciousness of anyone willing to pay for its bizarre processing". <br. The psychiatrist Marc Galanter described Erhard as "a man with no formal experience in mental health, self help, or religious revivalism, but a background in retail sales."

If any perceived subjectivity exists, we can counter it with other well-sourced counter-views. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The user cited above that removed this information from the article was  - this user was later ✅ by Checkuser as a sockpuppet of, and blocked indefinitely. More information on this and other disruptive socking on this topic of articles, at Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Section
This section has been edited into nonsense. Second graf refers to "the paper" and "the reporter," neither of which have been named. Will edit this in a few days, unless one of the original authors cares to correct it first. Viciouslies (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please add new subsections to the bottom of the talk page. Cirt (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The paper is the San Jose Mercury News. See here for more info; sorry but I don't have time to do editing myself (I'm not the original author either).  I agree the section reads very poorly; this is due to erosion of original text as part of what appears to be a sanitising process.  ProlixDog (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the section is unclear. I have edited to change "the paper" to "The San Jose Mercury News". Aclayartist (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Introducing poor sourcing for "award"
- A promotional video isn't the best source for this sort of info. This info should be removed unless this "award" (purportedly given to Erhard, by an organization affiliated with Erhard) was reported on in reliable sources, preferably secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * More information from an article in Newsday:
 * "The movie claims to ask "hard questions" about Erhard's life and work, though concerns about the film's agenda already are circulating on the Web. Walter Maksym, who has served as Erhard's attorney, is listed as an executive producer of the film on the Internet Movie Database."

Cirt (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Response:

I respectfully disagree that this info should be removed. The documentary shows actual footage of Werner Erhard’s daughters accepting the award given to him by the Youth at Risk foundation. That qualifies as verifiable, which is the standard for Wikipedia.

Your statement that the documentary is a “promotional” video is an opinion. The quote doesn’t even say it is a promotional video, it just says that “concerns are circulating on the web”. Concerns and opinion are circulated all the time all over the web, but they don’t qualify as reliable or verifiable even in a discussion on this talk page. It is completely clear in the documentary that Werner Erhard was given an award, because there is actual footage that shows this, and it belongs in this biography. Aclayartist (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but this "documentary" is not satisfactory as a reliable source. If you wish to include information about this "award", please find a source that satisfies WP:RS and WP:V. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While I understand you have an opinion about this source, it does, in fact, meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V.


 * The author of the documentary, Robyn Symon, is an Emmy award winning journalist, with a reputation for doing credible work.


 * ("Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made")


 * The documentary, by a reliable journalist, clearly shows Mr. Erhard's daughters accepting the award on his behalf. That is factual.  The award should be included in an article about Mr. Erhard, notwithstanding your opinion about the documentary.  Aclayartist (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The fact that is trying to use a non WP:RS source affiliated with Werner Erhard himself as a source for this award aside, the award-giving organization is itself also affiliated with Werner Erhard, see below. Cirt (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Youth at Risk "award"
Regarding and

Youth at Risk giving Werner Erhard an "award" isn't exactly an award as such because the organization is itself affiliated with Werner Erhard:

An Austin youth program that is recruiting corporate support and teen-age participants for a free, five-day summer camp in July has become a source of concern because of alleged cultic ties, misleading claims and phony endorsements. Breakthrough Foundation/      Youth At Risk, which has 34 chapters across the nation, promises "dramatic results" with troubled teen-agers. Yet Youth At Risk      claims of success with teens cannot be independently verified, claims of local corporate support are distorted, per-youth program costs are criticized as overpriced, and techniques are considered by some experts to be dangerous to the psyche of participants. Child advocates and national cult experts are particularly concerned about the program's alleged ties to controversial "est" guru Werner Erhard, who drew a large following in the 1970s and 1980s with his charismatic messianic notions about transforming the world. Erhard left the country two years ago amid allegations of molesting family members and questions about unpaid tax bills. It would not be very NPOV of Wikipedia to include this "award" in the article, as it makes it seem that Werner Erhard is getting some sort of recognition from a purportedly independent organization. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Awards on Wikipedia
Cirt appears to assert that an award is not an award if given by an orginization in some way affiliated with the person being recognized. That assertion is unsupported, as nothing prohibits an organization from honoring a person who has a relationship with the organization.


 * The definition of Award on Wikipedia "is something given to a person or a group of people to recognize excellence in a certain field; a certificate of excellence. Awards are often signified by trophies, titles, certificates, commemorative plaques, medals, badges, pins, or ribbons. An award may carry a monetary prize given to the recipient, for example, the Nobel Prize for contributions to society or the Pulitzer Prize for literary achievements. An award may also simply be a public acknowledgment of excellence, without any tangible token or prize."


 * "Awards can be given by any person or institution, although the prestige of an award usually depends on the status of the awarder. Usually, awards are given by an organization of some sort, or by the office of an official within an organization or government." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aclayartist (talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Breakthrough Foundation Information:
"Evaluation of the Breakthrough Foundation Youth at Risk Program - The 10-Day Course and Follow-Up Program - Final Report", a report on the program offered by the Breakthough Foundation to disadvantaged urban youth, concludes that "the Youth at Risk program demonstrated that troubled youth in in adverse circumstances can take advantage available opportunities and choose to be productive, responsible citizens." NCJRS Abstract No. NCJ 096032, Pg. 87. See: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=96032

The book "Preventing Interpersonal Violence Among Youth", includes a description of the Youth at Risk Program offered by the Breakthrough Foundation, including cites to the above report as well as citing reports by Center for Applied Social Research, Claremont Graduate School, An Evaluation of the Delinquency of Participants in the Youth at Risk Program (Claremont, CA: Author, 1986); J.J. Youth Results of Participation in the Youth at Risk Program: Jobs, Grades, Family and Recidivism (Fullerton California State University, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1988); V.G. Cartoof, An Evaluation of the New Haven Youth at Risk Program, (Dorchester, MA: Cartoof Consulting, 1990).


 * It is clearly demonstrated that the non-profit "Breakthrough Foundation", does well-documented worthwhile work with disadvantaged youth.

1. The Documentary by Robyn Symon is WP:RS that the Award was given to Mr. Erhard;

2. The Breakthrough Foundation, the organization presenting the award, is a viable organization that has contributed to the lives of many people, and they gave an Award to someone whom they consider has contributed to the lives of many people; and

3. An Award is not invalid because the people making the award have a relationship with the person they are recognizing. Aclayartist (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Response
 * 1) The "award" is not given from an independent foundation, but rather an organization itself affiliated with the individual receiving the "award", as demonstrated at Talk:Werner_Erhard.
 * 2) This "documentary" fails WP:RS, its production staff is itself affiliated with Werner Erhard and is as such not an independent source. See Talk:Werner_Erhard.
 * 3) There is so far no WP:RS source given that verifies Werner Erhard received such an "award". Cirt (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The so-called "Breakthrough Foundation"
To promote balance and foster the WP:NPOVin the Werner Erhard article, we can add a clause to the "Awards and acknowledgments" section of that article explaining that Rosenberg/Erhard founded/inspired the Breakthrough Foundation organization. And yes: we can set up a Breakthrough Foundation page with a Breakthrough Foundation section to provide documented detail on (for example) what Ward described as "alleged cultic ties, misleading claims and phony endorsements" -- Pedant17 (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Hunger Project "Main Article" template
On December 5, 2007 at 2301 hours a Wikipedian removed a heading and a template link to the The Hunger Project article. This had the effect of de-highlighting the material available on Rosenberg/Erhard in that article and went against normal Wikipedia practice of building the web with -type links from summary sections. Accordingly, I propose to restore the deleted material. -- Pedant17 (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The account referred to above that removed this information from the article is, this account was subsequently indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts, as a sock of . You can read more about that as well as many other disruptive sockpuppets on the topic of Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training, and Landmark Education, at Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RSN
Please see Reliable sources noticeboard, specifically Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed, after getting feedback at WP:RSN, see archived thread at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian of the Year
I would like to voice my support for inclusion of this award in the article. There is visual evidence provided in properly sourced material (Transformation: The Life and Legacy of Werner Erhard) that mister Erhard recieved the award from the Youth at Risk program. Whatever opinions are floating around the web about the biased viewpoints of the film-makers don't discount the validity of the visual evidence.

The second point of contetion with regards to the award's inclusion seems to be mister Erhard's affiliation with Youth at Risk. Certainly if mister Erhard was actively participating in the organization at the time, or receiving some monetary compensation from Youth at Risk, than the award shouldn't be listed here. However Youth at Risk is a charitable organization with no direct interaction with mister Erhard for years.

This is a legitimate award given by a successful organization to a man who was instrumental in its creation. It belongs in this article. Eaglebreath (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly if mister Erhard was actively participating in the organization at the time, or receiving some monetary compensation from Youth at Risk, than the award shouldn't be listed here. However Youth at Risk is a charitable organization with no direct interaction with mister Erhard for years. This is a legitimate award given by a successful organization to a man who was instrumental in its creation. -- Source to back up these claims? Cirt (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Although the material is not "source" material for the article, here is a link that describes the founding of the Breakthrough Foundation and their thinking behind the award. I'm putting this information here for editors' reference and not proposing it as source for the article's purposes: http://laurenceplatt.home.att.net/wernererhard/thehuman.html Aclayartist (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture of WE from the 70's
I would like to substitute a more accurate picture. I took it in 1977 at a retreat. I spent a great deal of time in his presence and find the present picture unrecognizable and poor. It is 155 by 198 pixels so it would fit. How do I do it? Skipper2 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The best way would be to first upload the image here, then to use that image from Wikimedia Commons back at this project. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of entire "Public perception" section
On December 6, 2007, a Wikipedian removed an entire section on "Public perception" of Werner Erhard, stating in the edit-summary 'Martin Gardner and Marc Galanter do not add up to "Public perception"'. No-one suggests that Gardner and Galanter "add up" to public perception, yet the well-sourced views of eminent commentators has disappeared from the article, and the encouragement to add similar or dissenting views in this sub-topic reduced. I propose restoring the removed text as a basis for broadening the presentation of Erhard's impact and influence on the basis of well-sourced and reputable commentators. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The account that removed this material was, exposed as a sock and blocked indef as such. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk page archiving??
YES, after 30 days stuff is eligible for archiving. But, c'mon, really now, archiving is for when the talk page gets too big for it's britches. May I suggest that archiving stuff as soon as possible, especially on THESE contentious articles, is counter-productive. Leaving some of the 'stirrings' visible might help people see some of the contention involved in wrastling these articles into decent shape. (That's a request (however oblique) to NOT archive talk page content (in the future) until the talk page is moderately long). Thanks... Ratagonia (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Settings adjusted for archival . Cirt (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of second edition of biography
On December 8, 2007, at 0816 hours, a Wikipedian removed details of the second edition of Pressman's biography of Rosenberg/Erhard, thus depriving readers of the information that a secondary source went through a second edition and eliminating the unique tracking information such as the ISBN in question. Let's restore this information -- even if in an abbreviated format. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit was performed by account, exposed as a disruptive sock and indef blocked , see Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Zimmerman quote
The Zimmerman quote is taken directly from "Transformation: The Life and Legacy of Werner Erhard". The film is credible material and is a relible source. In regards to the Zimmerman quote, there is actual footage of the man speaking those particular words directly into the camera, there can be no possible justification for their removal from the article. Eaglebreath (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The film is not a WP:RS source. Cirt (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The filmmaker Robyn Symon is an reputable Emmy award winning journalist, the conclusion that her journalistic integrity is compromised by Walter Maksum being an executive producer is unsupported. As for the Zimmerman quote, let me reiterate, it is cited to the original source, an acedemic in the field of philosophy, a field pertinent to this article.  It should be included.Eaglebreath (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable book
The article should not mention a non-notable book published by a virtually unheard of publishing company, which itself has management affiliated with Werner Erhard. Cirt (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The book, 60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard: How America's Top Rated Television Show Was Used in an Attempt to Destroy a Man Who Was Making A Difference written by the journalist Jane Self, published by Breakthru Publishing, ISBN 0-942540-23-9, is a book that provides an opportunity for readers who want more information about the topic of this article to get more information, which is the purpose of having other books listed. It may be that the book itself is not worthy of an article. I know that there used to be a wikipedia article on this book that was just recently removed for being non notable as an article, however the book itself provides a resource for people to find valuable information that they may be interested in. MLKLewis (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The book is a POV non-notable source from a questionable publisher affiliated with Werner Erhard, and as such should not be included in the article. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @MLKLewis - can you please provide any independent reliable secondary sources to back up your above claims about the book? Cirt (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with MLKLewis. While the book itself in non-notable, it provides a counter to the POV-pushing of the San Jose Mercury News and the 60 Minutes piece based on that "research".  SHOULD be noted under WE, as it is important to his life-story, and without it, we only get the incorrect side of the story.  Ratagonia (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @Ratagonia, please provide a WP:RS source backing up these claims you have made above about the book. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Notability WP:NB relates to articles about books in wikipedia, not the inclusion of books in the other books section of an article.--MLKLewis (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And, the book, 60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard was written by a journalist (with a PhD) which in itself qualifies as a reliable source according to WP:RS. The book includes numerous footnotes and full citations in each chapter with documentation of the sources used. In addition, it is listed in the further reading section of the entry on Werner Erhard by the Biography Resource Center which is a world leader in e-research and educational publishing for libraries, schools and businesses, and is listed as a source at Novelguide.com (which is a resource for analysis of Literature and Biographies) and it is cited in the book by John J. Sosik, a Professor of Management and Organization at Penn State University, titled, "Leading with character: Stories of valor and virtue and the principles they teach", which was reviewed in the Educational Book Review . On the basis of the sources provided above, as well as the arguments by Ratagonia that this book provides a balance to much of the negative POV relating to this topic, I am reinserting the book in the books section of this article and related articles.  --MLKLewis (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Gardner reference
The reference is from someone commenting outside his field of expertise. It was Gardner's unqualified and vaguely referenced opinion meant as a dig against a paraphysicist who had been duped by a spoon bending magician. The comment was not in regard to any kind of public perception of Erhard. And moreover, how can one be kicked out of a church, of which one was never a part.Eaglebreath (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The relevant text on Martin Gardner's opinion read: Martin Gardner characterized Erhard in 1976 as "a former Scientologist (the church expelled him in 1971), now running a movement of his own called est (Erhard Seminars Training), designed to to raise the consciousness of anyone willing to pay for its bizarre processing". -- Since Martin Gardner ranks as an experienced long-time commentator on human foibles and belief-systems, one can hardly characterize him as "commenting outside his field of expertise" in respect to expressing off-hand comments about Scientology, Rosenberg/Erhard and his activities. Since Gardner experienced the pop-cultural landscape of the 1970s directly, his opinions on that period have weight and provide some NPOV balance to other more sycophantic opinions, generally just as "unqualified and vaguely referenced". If Gardner wrote primarily to provide "a dig" against some other person, his unvarnished aside about Rosenberg/Erhard expresses all the more accurately a view expressible and expressed in 1976 on the subject of Rosenberg/Erhard, his "movement" and its "bizarre processing". -- Gardner made his comment "not in regard to any kind of public perception of Erhard" -- we can agree on that. But on the contrary, Gardner reflects and expresses directly one of the possible public perceptions of Rosenberg/Erhard, made in the heyday of est and succinctly summarizing the essence and weirdness of Rosenberg/Erhard's situation then. -- Gardner does not address the issue as to whether the Church of Scientology has "part[s]" which can get "kicked out". But he dramatically summarizes the beginning of the well-documented dispute between Rosenberg/Erhard and the Scientological hierarchy. If we can provide  reliable sources that positively disprove that the Church of Scientology ever "expelled" Rosenberg/Erhard from the fold, let's include them too. In any event, let's restore Gardner's insight into the reputation and image of Rosenberg/Erhard in the mid-1970s. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of valid source
Mother Jones (magazine) is a valid source, and should not be removed. Cirt (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now that you reverted your own edit and I appreciate it! Thank you for seeing and fixing your error.--MLKLewis (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * However, the way you are using it is not valid, and the Mother Jones piece you used as a reference doesn't pertain to this article in any way that hasn't been handled already, by better sources - so in that respect it is not a valid source for this article, and certainly not in reference to the documentary where you are using it.--MLKLewis (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I self reverted as a courtesy as I was inappropriately engaging in nonconstructive behavior. I have instead taken this matter here to the talk page. There is simply no reason not to have two cites to back up the information at the end of this sentence. Both cites complement each other, as in one case the writer is not sure of the info, and in the other the info is given definitively. Cirt (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mother Jones proves its worth as a reliable source: it provides extra information on the production of the Transformation film and also makes this information available for WP:Verification on-line at http://www.motherjones.com/media/2009/07/landmark-moments (retrieved 2009-09-25). We can usefully include this quotable material: "2006[:] Erhard breaks media silence in Transformation: The Life and Legacy of Werner Erhard, a film coproduced by his lawyer." -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is a section called Public Perception appropriate to this Biography?
I would like to invite discussion on whether a section on Public Perception belongs in an encyclopedic Biography. How does one gain accurate access to the public's perception about anything? And in this area, there was so much media that did not understand what the public who had direct expereince with Werner understood. There are many many people who have done the est training and other work with Werner Erhard since it began and they are the public. Can 20 or 30 year old media pieces by someone who didn't go out and talk to them really be representative of public perception? Actually the media may cause public perception, but that is a different topic. As for as the one line that is currently in this section, does a psychiatrist commenting on someone's experience represent the public? I looked up the source and in reading found a different quote, "In another study, an expereinced clinician evaluated a series of his psyciatric patients who took the est training and concluded that the majority derived some benefit from the program." (page 75) and I can see an argument for that being more representative of the topic public perception than this individual's evaluation of Werner Erhard's training and skills. But I still wonder if we can get an accurate overall understanding of something as subjective as Public Perception. I think however, that what little is there right now does not pertain. Any other thoughts on this? --MLKLewis (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This material was previously removed by a disruptive sock that was related to the investigation (that account was subsequently blocked indef). See also Talk:Werner_Erhard/Archive_2. Cirt (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this section belongs in a Biography as well, or perhaps more to the point, wouldn't this section have to grow extremely large to do itself justice? Public perception of anyone is a very broad subject.Eaglebreath (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We can best portray public perception by incrementally reflecting multiple reliable sources which cover all significant viewpoints. A reputable encyclopedia cannot ignore the different extremes of opinion that various folk publish with such vigor. Let the section grow. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Article tags
The article tags should remain. Much of the article is either poorly sourced, and/or has POV issues, in addition to issues of cleanup. Cirt (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * yet you aren't working on it despite this point of view of yours ;-)..... since it's a biography, remove these poorly sourced sections and what you think are POV issues. Every biography I read on this website has these problems; these "tags" from 3 years ago don't add any value except to make this page. Put the tags along with the other page-long tags on the talk page and people will get the idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiehead (talk • contribs)
 * It has been difficult to attempt to improve the quality of the article, as it has been dominated by socks and WP:SPAs for quite some time. For an example of some of the accounts that have been involved in this problem, see Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would add that parts of the article is written like a fan site, even if the rest looks like encyclopedic. F.ex.:
 * Werner Erhard is considered by many to be a cultural icon of the 1970s. Millions of people have been influenced by Erhard’s work through direct participation or the cultural change that occurred as a result of people participating in his transformational programs.
 * WP:PEACOCK. ... Just a first impression ... ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 13:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cirt (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "business motivation" link
On 10 December, 2007, a Wikipedian removed a link to the concept of "business motivation". The idea may seem abstract and abstruse to 21st-century readers, but in the 20th century people really spoke in hushed terms of "business" and talked seriously about "business motivation" as something valid and potentially important. Let's reinstate the link. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
Settings have already previously been extended - from 1 month to three months. Please do not undo the bot's archiving. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cirt objects to the non-archiving of the following section from the WE Talk Page:


 * (Was Title) Inappropriate talk page archiving??


 * YES, after 30 days stuff is eligible for archiving. But, c'mon, really now, archiving is for when the talk page gets too big for it's britches. May I suggest that archiving stuff as soon as possible, especially on THESE contentious articles, is counter-productive. Leaving some of the 'stirrings' visible might help people see some of the contention involved in wrastling these articles into decent shape. (That's a request (however oblique) to NOT archive talk page content (in the future) until the talk page is moderately long). Thanks... Ratagonia (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Settings adjusted for archival [1]. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate Cirt's concern for the feelings of the archive-BOT... well, I don't.  That's sarcasm.  Let me be more direct: Archiving is available when the Talk Page gets too cumbersome.  The archiving bot is a crude machine for archiving on a regular basis, which sometimes works well. This page used to produce reams of 'discussion', and the archiving BOT USED to be very useful on this page.  With the removal of the sock puppets, this page draws a lot less 'discussion'. In this particular case, archiving one short paragraph (about unnecessary archiving - how ironic!) is, IMNSHO, rather useless and I would prefer that the paragraph in question stay in the talk page.  Perhaps Cirt would like to come up with a COMPELLING REASON to archive away that particular paragraph, in which case I could support archiving it.  In general BOTs are USEFUL, but I do not feel that us human-type wikipedians need automatically accept actions of the BOTs when they do no serve a useful purpose.  Comments?  Ratagonia (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That thread had zero activity or new posts of any kind for over three months. I see no reason to retain it on the talk page. After a previous complaint, the archival was extended, from one month to three months, and from 1 min thread left on this page, to 5. This is very reasonable. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of unrecanted allegations
On December 21, 2007, at 00:16 hours a Wikipedian removed material poin ting out that some allegations made against Werner Erhard in the 60 Minutes episode of March 3, 1991, remained unrecanted. This resulted in giving the impression that the entirety of the 60 Minutes documentary had no merit. We can redress the balance with clarified and expanded material like: Members (plural) of Erhard's family also alleged that Erhard beat his wife and children. When reporting recantation, neither Faltermeyer (despite the sweeping claim of Terry M. Giles that "an article from Time Magazine, March 1998, [...] clearly states that the allegations broadcast on 60 Minutes were in fact retracted and untrue" ) nor Libaw report recantation of such allegations. -- Pedant17 (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should all un-recanted accusations be removed from the article? In general, certain accusations are historically important. In this particular case, the accusations by a child of sexual abuse by a parent, with a later recanting of the accusations have two important characteristics that make the recanting significantly questionable. First, a subset of accurate disclosures of parental sexual abuse are recanted by the victim. Second, the accused individual makes his living by using psychological techniques to alter the attitudes, perceptions and behaviors of the people around him. Generally, the episode where the subject's daughter made the accusation, and later recanted it is a significant issue in the subject's biography. It is important to include both the accusation and the recanting. --Tomdarch (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Erhard work from bibliography
On December 21, 2007, at 00:19 hours a Wikipedian removed a bibliographic reference to work produced by Erhard, stating in the edit-summary "broken link - can't find any way to reference this publication". The link to http://www.xs4all.nl/~anco/mental/randr/werner.htm functions perfectly well as of 2010-02-19, and in combination with http://mysite.verizon.net/frautsch/quotes/erhard.txt and other (reliable) sources indicates that the cited work exists as a published text and that Landmark Education retains and defends the copyright thereto. We can readily restore/rework the removed material as a contribution to expressing the completeness of Erhard's written corpus, something like:

Works by Erhard
-- Pedant17 (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * {{cite book
 * last= Erhard
 * first= Werner
 * authorlink= Werner Erhard
 * title= If God Had Meant Man to Fly, He Would Have Given Him Wings; or: Up to Your Ass in Aphorisms
 * url=
 * origyear=
 * year= 1972
 * publisher= [Privately published]
 * location= San Francisco


 * Note furthermore the text at http://web.archive.org/web/20070101095237/http://www.xs4all.nl/~anco/mental/randr/werner.htm -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV & Accuracy Tags
Since there still seems to be recent activity on this talkpage, is there someone here who could summarize the outstanding issues that have resulted in these two tags being on this article for so long? If no-one really remembers I will read through the archives and try figure it out, but I thought it might not hurt to ask.-- Birgitte SB  21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been many issues. The series of articles relating to this subject matter were dominated by a great deal of socks (at this point in time over 20 or so) for a significant amount of time, see Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. -- Cirt (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you believe any NPOV or Accuracy disputes remain outstanding in the current version of the article?-- Birgitte SB  22:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. 1) Accuracy: There are questionable spammy self-promotional and just generally Vanispamcruftisement-sources being used, some of which are also conflict of interest with the subject. 2) NPOV: There is the presence of spammy self-promotional language throughout the article, as well as the absence of a good deal of historical information on information critical of the subject, which has been heavily reported on in hundreds of independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. (An apology: I just signed up for an account because of this article.  I'm trying to learn the local culture and language, so the following will be, er, blunt.)  This article screams of PR whitewashing and stands totally in contrast to essentially all other discussions of the subject.  I know from personal experience that this article does not clearly address numerous questions that people will have in mind when they come to this page.  For example, "If the subject returns to the US, will he face arrest or other legal action?  If not, why has he not set foot in the US in years?" or "Did the subject take "classes" from or participate in Scientology as he was developing his product?" or "Did the subject's daughter accuse him publicly of sexually molesting her?  What became of those public accusations?"  As it stands, I clearly perceive the article as incomplete and biased. --Tomdarch (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom thank you for sharing your plans on this talk page. While I understand your thinking in this, I am afraid, as less familiar editor, you might run into a few problems unless you are extremely careful.  Negative information about a living person (this includes people on death row, people who wind up on the news from because some took a cell phone video, as well as people like Walter Erhard) has a special policy calling for the highest scrutiny at Biographies of Living Persons.  Most Wikipedians just call this BLP, but many people misuse that acronym to refer to anything about living people, so I aviod it.  The kind of information that you propose to work on will be more quickly dealt with and given greater erring on the side of removal attitude than almost any other kind of information found on Wikipedia.  This is by design.  The best way to avoid having your edits reverted is to talk about the sources you plan on using before you actually add any of this to the article.  If you post a list of sources you have gathered at WP:RSN (a noticeboard about sourcing) and tell them you plan on using these sources for negative infomation about a living person, the people there will help identify any problems that may exist with the sources.  Once you understand how they are evaluating those sources, you should be able to go forward and do it yourself in the future.  When you have identified what sources are going to be acceptable, be certain to use citation templates with all the new information you add.  You can find a guide for that at Citing sources and futher help at Help desk.  It may turn out that some portion of information you hoped to add is not contained in any of the acceptable sources. This often happens because people forget that the goal is to write an encylopedic article rather than a news articles.  Encylopedic articles are comprehensive summaries of what can be found in other reliable sources.  If some hasn't reliably written about it elsewhere, it won't belong in an enclyopedic article.  The last concern you might bump into is the one that brought you here: Neutrality.  Part of neutrality is including all the applicable views of the subject, and I understand that you find a few to be missing right now.  The other part of neutrality is weighting all of the views in a similar way to what is found amoung reliable sources.  If some incident is only given a sentence or two in the five comprehensive sources plus the reports in daily papers the day it happen it would be inappropriate for half of the text of the article to be about that incident.  That is an extreme example, but make sure you think about overall weight when addressing neutrality.  Good luck with editing.  And don't forget that main question that readers usually have about a biography is actually "Who the hell is Walter Erhard?"  At least that was my first thought.-- Birgitte  SB  19:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above assessment provided by . Unfortunately due to the massive prior sockpuppetting that went on at this page, the article at present indeed does seem to be a whitewashing presentation of the subject matter. Tomdarch gives some great suggestions for additional things to include. -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't think I was disagreeing with Tom's assessment. Because I haven't read enough to form any kind of opinion about what this article should cover.  I do think that writing about things that reflect negatively on a living person is like jumping into the deep end of the sharks tank for a novice editor.  He will only succeed by seeking out lots of advice or through trial and error.  And the latter method tends to be messy, dispiriting, and damaging to a novice editors reputation.-- Birgitte  SB  17:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was simply agreeing with the assessment of the article's current status, as given by, with regard to the unfortunate whitewashing that has gone on in the past on this page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of discussion on allegations
On December 27, 2007, at 21:12 hours, a Wikipedian removed sourced discussion of publicly broadcast allegations made by Erhard's family, stating in the edit-summary "the statement is too vague to contribute anything here". Since the passage removed contributes to the understanding of the severity, extent and vehemence of the allegations and their consequences, lets restore and expand, as (say): Later, an August 2002, ABC News report referred to allegations by one of Erhard's daughters, but failed to address allegations made by other persons, including another Erhard daughter. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The first source seems fine to me, but the second is sourced a web forum and would not be appropriate for this kind of information. I don't see how we can expand this beyond the two facts given in the ABC articles without another source..-- Birgitte  SB  10:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How about using the Jane Self Book, which is actually...ahem... written on the subject? Mabye?
 * Both the Rick Ross site, and ABC news are unreliable, the ABC News show 60 minutes, actually retracted the statements about his tax evasion charges.
 * Best to actually CHECK THE PRIMARY SOURCES, instead of regurgitating secondary ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.15.50 (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That source fails WP:RS, it is essentially a promotional piece, with affiliations to Erhard from both the author and the publisher. -- Cirt (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Another source: we can quote who alleged what from the Wikileaks transcript accessible with comments and notes from Suppressed CBS News 60 Minutes on Landmark cult leader Werner Erhard, 3 Mar 1991.

CBS news is the owner of this material, not wikileaks, and CBS removed it from their own archives. In regard to this article the CBS segment is NOT a reliable source. "The “60 Minutes” segment was filled with so many factual discrepancies that the transcript was made unavailable with this disclaimer: “This segment has been deleted at the request of CBS News for legal or copyright reasons.” http://www.believermag.com/issues/200305/?read=article_snider. Also repeating unsubstantiated allegations on a talk page is damaging and against Wikipedia's [WP:BLP] policies. The BLP policy further states that contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages and external links. Therefore, I have removed the damaging and poorly sourced material from this discussion, and from the external links section of this article.MLKLewis (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * CBS "owns" the logos and the format of the material in question, just as the interviewees on the 60 Minutes segment in question "own" their expressed opinions, and just as the English-speaking people at large "own" relevant words like "beat", "abuse", "rape" and "incest". CBS has every right to prune its own archives, but long before circumstances impelled it to do so it had broadcast the material to a potential audience of millions: it had published it -- and that (undisputed) publication and dissemination concerns us here in the context of the now well-known allegations and their alleged retraction. In regard to that debate, the verified Wikileaks re-publication provides a reliable source. Given that certain people have made claims of "factual discrepancies" and of retractions, it becomes all the more important to examine who alleged what and who retracted what, and when. In this respect Wikileaks has done us a favor by reversing the effect of what Wikileaks describes: "Both, video and transcript, have been published at various points in time, but are not publically available anymore due to legal threats against publishers from Werner Erhard." The material backs up existing secondary sources, quoted on this talk-page, which summarize the allegations, and which I provided it in response to a comment pointing out the need for more verification. Each source carefully emphasizes that the people made the allegations as allegations, and the context of discussion on the talk-page concentrates on the effect of the allegations and not on their historical accuracy. -- The publishing of allegations of this magnitude on a widely-broadcast television program makes them notable, regardless of their legal status (proven, unproven, or lapsed). Works on Erhard have (properly) noted the broadcast and summarized its content. Note in particular Steven Pressman's treatment of the matter in Outrageous Betrayal, 1993 edition, pages 143 and 255-258:

Deborah's allegations of sexual abuse of herself and her sister were first publicly aired in early 1991 on the CBS program "60 Minutes." Prior to the broadcast, Erhard's attorney sent to CBS a polygraphist's report asserting that Erhard had truthfully denied raping o sexually molesting any of his children. On the program, CBS broadcast a blanket denial by Erhard. "It's just plain not true. Just plain not true. And anybody who would say something about it has got to be sick." Erhard's subsequent libel suit against CBS, which he later dropped, included an allegation that CBS had falsely reported that he had "sexually abused his daughter Deborah Rosenberg,""forcibly raped and had sexual intercourse, committed incest with his daughter," and "admitted having sexual intercourse with his daughter and claimed it to be a 'nurturing experience' for her." [...] [...] on the evening of March 3, millions of television viewers [...] tuned [...] to CBS to watch another edition of "60 Minutes." [...] A few seconds later, Erhard's face filled the screen, and he was heard briefly touting his est-flavored philosophy about making "the world work for everyone." Then the scene shifted to a woman named Dawn Damas, who once had been hired as a governess to take care of the Erhard children. "He beats his wife and he beats his children and he rapes a daughter, and then he goes and tells people how to have marvelous relationships," Damas said solemnly. "I'm sorry. That's what I have against Werner Erhard." [...] "60 Minutes" correspondent Ed Bradley related a dark story of Erhard's past. The camera dramatically focused its gaze on a few of Erhard's former followers such as Bob Larzelere, est's onetime "well being director," who ha left in the late 1970s, and Wendy Drucker, the wife of former est executive Vincent Drucker, as they described their own harrowing accounts of life inside Erhard's world. Bradley then turned his attention to two of Erhard's daughters by Ellen - Celeste and Adair - who choked back tears as they recounted the ugly stories of their father's violent temper and relived the night their mother had been beaten and abused years earlier at the Franklin House. "Does your mother know you're talking to us?" Bradley asked Adair after informing viewers that Ellen's divorce agreement prohibited her from telling her own side of the story of her relationship with Werner Erhard. "Yeah," Adair replied. Before we left tonight, I talked to her and she's just - you know, she said, 'I can't thank you enough for doing this, for saying these things that need to be said.' And I know that she wishes she could do the same." So far, the "60 Minutes" broadcast had not included anything about Erhard that had not already appeared in other stories. [...] Deborah Rosenberg, the youngest of Erhard's four children from his first marriage, had never spoken publicly about Werner Erhard since her well-orchestrated interview years earlier for a book about children of celebrities. [...] Now the blond thirty-one-year-old had a more solemn story to tell about what it was like to bee the daughter of Werner Erhard. "I don't have a problem saying that it happened," Deborah told Bradley, choosing her words carefully. "I don't like describing it, but I don't have a problem admitting that he molested me." Deborah then added that her father had forced sexual intercourse with one of her older sisters, a charge that Erhard vociferously denied in a portion of a taped interview played by Bradley on the air. Deborah, however, offered a different version of her father's response to the alleged incident during a family gathering aboard Erhard's boat in the mid-1980's. "What he did say when I confronted him about it was that there had been sexual intercourse and that it had been a nurturing experience for my sister," she said. "He admitted it?" asked Bradley, an incredulous tone in his voice. "He admitted there was sexual intercourse and that it was a nurturing experience," she replied softly. "He said he did not rape her." [...] One year after the "60 Minutes" piece aired, Erhard filed a lawsuit against CBS and a variety of other defendants, claiming that the broadcast contained several "false, misleading and defamatory" statements about Erhard. However, Erhard dropped the lawsuit a few months later before any court decision had been reached on its claims. [...]
 * In this sense the course and content of the 60 Minutes broadcast entered the public domain many years ago and the presence of reliable sources like Libaw and Pressman and Wikileaks make the matter not "poorly sourced" but excellently sourced. Its existence seems totally uncontentious. Even if one regards the quoted transcript as a primary source, it can fall into what the WP:BLP describes as a case where "a reliable secondary source has published the material. [...] Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source". The removal of material from the talk-page seems unjustified -- on the contrary, it offends against the conventions on editing another Wikipedian's contributions to talk-pages. Let's restore the Wikileaks quotations and summary and links so that we can discuss their relevance and build on them to improve the scope and accuracy of our article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)