Talk:Werner Erhard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Werner Erhard article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Archives October 2006 - 13 March 2007

Contents 1 Family Section Rewrite 2 Buddysystem's changes 3 Sources for Information in this Article 3.1 Erhard/Hubbard Friendship 4 Cleaning Up the Structure of this Biography 5 Shortening this Biography 6 Scientology Project 7 Using "technology" 8 Occupation - Retired? 9 Gandhi Intl Foundation Award 10 Werner Erhard Biography Website 10.1 Werner Erhard Biography Website was set up with content copied from Landmark Education site 11 Appearance on Larry King 12 Jewish? 13 New Age author? 14 Pedant17's edits 15 "spin-offs and successors" 16 Loaded Language - Cult Leader 17 Cayman Islands Info

[edit] 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 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).

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)

• 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.

• 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] Sources for Information in this Article

Does anyone know of sources for the following claims in this article?

• 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.)

Roccoconon 17:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • 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)

[edit] 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)

• 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. FamilyRelated 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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).

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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 think that maybe this is a good compromise for now, Novalis' compromise. Smee 19:19, 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)

• Okay, sounds good, I can respect that argument... Smee 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Sfacets 01:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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).

[edit] "spin-offs and successors"

• 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).

[edit] 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{{Fact|date=March 2007}} [[cult]]-[[leader]]<ref>Steven M. Tipton: ''Getting saved from the sixties: moral meaning in conversion and cultural change''. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1982, page 289. ISBN 0520038681 </ref>)

-- 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)

[edit] 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).

• 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)