Talk:Avatar Course/Archive 1

message: The article needs significant work and needs its references nailed down. I've made a start on this, rewriting it somewhat more clearly and listing and using more references. Needs more. Harry Palmer definitely warrants an article, but we need to get it right and be seen to be getting it right - David Gerard 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree fully with David Gerard that all facts in the article should be supported by good references. It would be useful if some kind of footnote system is used so it is clear which fact is supported by which reference. This would also highlight whether there are any unreferenced "facts" which may need deleting, jguk 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to hack on it over the weekend. Harry Palmer's IP did another blanking; I've left a note asking him to instead flag disputed facts or references on this talk page. We don't usually let people determine whether they're encyclopedic or not, but we do very much want to get things right - David Gerard 21:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, you can report about the material without copying the material, which is what would trigger copyright claims.  However, the bigger problem is that if you were using material that you only had access to because you were an Avatar Master, you might run into problems with Wikipedia:Verifiability, where it would be difficult or impossible for others to double-check your work (if they can't get access to the same materials except by being a licensed Avatar Master...)  However, a newspaper or magazine article reporting what its sources say about the Avatar Courses would in most cases be verifiable and an acceptably reliable source (of course, it would be a reliable source for the claim that "former members say the content is blah blah blah", not the claim "the content is blah blah blah" -- I trust you see the distinction.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References and rework

message: Not a surprise to anyone, but the description of the dispute with Eldon Braun needs to be NPOVed.  Right now it's very clearly slanted towards "Palmer was in the right, Braun was in the wrong".  Even if this is the conclusion most readers would come to if presented with the full facts, we are here to present those facts, not to push the conclusion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: What's the deal?  The court docs with rulings against Harry Palmer and links to sites against Avatar (with externsive documentation) have been removed, leaving the article to be one big advertisement for the courses, and almost all references to web sites owned by Avatar.
I consider this a major hack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.49.216.218 (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Edit removing pertinent sources 

message: I've decided I've researched this topic long enough to do some major edits on it.
My goals are threefold:
(1) To remove opinion-oriented wording, or place them in a quoted context.
(2) To add more specific references
(3) To remove references (and possibly links to such sites) related to aquiring copyrighted materials that are available without permission.
I am also considering separate, but connected entries for "Harry Palmer (Avatar)" and "Avatar (Star's Edge)", as people may have an interest in the latter without concern for the details of the former.  It will also clean up what now seems to be a bit scatterted of topic.
My position is that better documentation and more information, not less, will benefit the truth, and therefore opposing points of view if they have nothing to hide.  I am open to suggestions and any information that may be available.
NOTE: I am not personally affiliated with Harry Palmer, Star's Edge, Avatar, Eldon Braun, or any other entity mentioned in the article, though some of my research has been through correspondence with some of these parties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ken JP Stuczynski (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up, POV, Sources 

message: Someone blanked most of the educational credentials section and replaced it with a single, though correct fact.  However, I wasn't sure the history of misrepresentation of his degree(s) was pertient enough to leave where it was, so I don't plan to undo the change.  I may reference it under a sub-topic of critics and controversies at a later date; I may not.
Please note I have suspicion it was a particular someone affiliated with Avatar / Harry Palmer based on a recent correspondence.  Next time I hope they feel they can discuss it in the open of the Wikipedia commnity.
Ken JP Stuczynski 03:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  At it again. 

message: As mentioned in my user page (with explanation of personal problem), I'm looking to back off from working on this particular entry, though I had plans to really clean it up.  I'm making a few minor changes -- and learning some WP editing skills in the process.  I'm mostly reorganizing existing content and references, but I'd like to pass some major edits on to someone else to double-check for accuracy and pertinence.
And I may request a second opinion on undoing certain blanking that may occur regarding facts I've personally verified.  Any registered editors that are up tot he challenge, please drop me a line for my future reference.
Thanks,
Ken JP Stuczynski 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backing Off 

message: I dont think a lot of stuff was blanked out to hide anything but some of it doesnt make sense to me why it should be gone. I agree with some of the changes and will work with Ringness or whoever to cite things better and get rid of stuff that doesnt belong. But lets have a dialogue please.
Among a few little things i cleaned up the so-called advertising links for Star's Edge but cant beleive we should get rid of it. Sure their whole website is one big advertisement and nothing more but it IS the official website for the subject matter no matter how lame it may be. And other language versions belong on those WP sites i would think.
For the other citations i think we should leave the discussion boards because they let people see all the things good and bad people are saying and people from Harry Palmers camp post there not just critics and fans. it really tells the story of how they deal with critics and that is really important to the controversey of them being a cult. its not a factual source of raw information but a factual source of what things are being discussed and said on all sides. 
Much of what people have concrete documented facts has not appeared in most news sources YET but the sites link to documents and other proof. And why are we getting rid of primary source court document links? Please lets discuss this before we go tearing it apart. Venus Copernicus (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Palmer labeled an author is quite misleading -- he is only self-published with no known following outside his group, and authorship is questionable in most or all of the works, belonging to his company or written around his persona as creator of the subject matter.  What about changing the article to "Harry Palmer (Avatar Course)" or "Harry Palmer (Star's Edge)" or even rework it into a non-bio article such as "Star's Edge (Avatar Course)" or "Star's Edge (Harry Palmer)?  What do you think?  I've also pondered the idea of having one for the company / courses and one for his bio, but I don't think the level of noteworthiness calls for it, and honestly, they are inseparable, as the company and courses are synonymous with him as final authority in every aspect, dogmatically and financially. Ken JP Stuczynski (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Accurate Titles 

message: I've tried to extract minimum amounts of "avatar is" statements from this discussion to put near the top of the article. I also tried to shift a paragraph that might be interpreted as a negative view further down to fit in with the scientology section. Regarding disclosure as per Scientology sanctions, I am in contact with someone who is an instructor at Avatar courses, but have never taken these courses, nor talked with them in detail about the course or their beliefs. Please let me know if you need more clarification. gringer (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is the correct place to post comments about the public page. If not, I apologize for the intrusion.
I had several years of association with the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) before it was dismantled by the Church of Scientology.  I lost my wife to a religious cult and believe it's vital to infiltrate suspected cult organizations to find out what's really going on.
For background information I followed the negative references on this page and visited several web sites managed by Palmer's organization or those closely aligned with it. I spoke on the phone with people with various levels of experience with the organization. I read their marketing materials, some of Palmer's books and watched some of his videos. I participated in a weekend seminar and worked through some of their exercises.
Here's what I found.
Palmer's organization does not fit the basic definition of a religious cult - the exchange of self-determination for salvation. Several of the exercises I explored were designed to increase personal will power, which is the opposite of any cult I've investigated. I found no religious or spiritual tone with the people I contacted. I could find no reference to churches, priests, rituals, holy services or other trappings of religious cults. Palmer references teachings from various eastern religions but he also references Jim Rohn, a business philosopher. Legal documentation shows that the organization is a for-profit corporation and has no tax-free status accorded to churches or non-profits.
The organization has no dues, no membership, and no regular meetings. They neither ask for nor take donations. They publish the rates and schedules of their training courses which are held in hotel ballrooms. The one I visited was operating with the doors open and I saw no special security. The teachers and the students wore regular clothes and were using printed workbooks. Regular hotel staff serviced the event like any conference or training.
The teachers are not actually teaching. They would more rightly be called coaches. My interactions with them were coaching-style feedback on my ability to  perform an exercise. There was no attempt to offer therapy, suggestions for personal improvement, or insights into my "consciousness".
My research showed that Palmer licenses teachers to use his materials. Most training organizations using this strategy charge license fees and royalties to licensees. Speaking from personal experience, this strategy has led Palmer's organization to be aggressive in their sales tactics but less so than most internet marketers that I know. I only received a couple of follow up phone calls. There has been no further contact from the organization.
My research on the secret materials showed that Palmer had defended his copyright and won his case in court. As the copyrighted materials are important to his income it would have been strange if he didn't sue.
I was able to download the information that apparently spawned the lawsuit. Even though there is no way to judge the authenticity of these documents, there were no secret rituals in those that I read. Perhaps Palmer, like many others, believes that the hint of secret teachings is good marketing.
From my perspective, the most unusual aspect of Palmer's association with Scientology is that he left, they sued him, he won and they left him alone. 
It's been my experience that Scientology rarely loses lawsuits. And they do not leave people alone if there is the slightest hint that their legal rights have been breached. Since this legal action was closed over two decades ago in Palmer's favor it seems that claims of a connection between Palmer's materials and Scientology are inaccurate.
I concluded that this is a legitimate personal development training course. 
Palmers teachings are in line with people such as Echkart Tolle, Tony Robbins, T. Harv Eker, Hale Dwoskin, Joe Vitale, and Bob Proctor. All of these people promote beliefs in personal responsibility as a path to a better life. They all have organizations that sell books, videos, seminars and classes to teach you their methods. And, while they all promise to provide the key to lasting happiness, success and peace, they are not religious cults. While Palmer's training methods may not be mainstream, they are closer to the Sedona Method than to Scientology.
The notice at the top of the public page says "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The first notice at the top of this page reads, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Further notices at the top of the page provide instructions regarding legitimate second accounts and advocacy.
As noted by others commenting here, this page is neither unbiased nor sourced according to Wiki guidelines. Based on my reading of the history of the page, it was started by someone with an ax to grind. While Palmer has no doubt made mistakes in his life, his training is at least moderately effective or I would have found hundreds of unsatisfied customers clamoring on web sites for retribution. Instead I found most of the allegations coming from a small group led by Eldon Braun, the loser of the copyright lawsuit.
I have spent a good bit of my life dealing with the after effects in families whose loved ones have been seduced by religious cults. I believe it's wise to err on the side of caution. I also believe that those who take the position of watch-dogs have a responsibility greater than making sensational claims by crying "cult!"
I appreciate your willingness to volunteer time and energy to this effort to provide accurate public information. And I hope you find my report helpful. I ask that you do your job of editing according to the rules of your organization. It will be more useful to everyone in the long run.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diogeneswasright (talk • contribs) 16:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avatar course stub 

message: After rare changes over the last year, all in a day's time this article was systematically dismantled by three editors. What is gone? what is probably the most noteworthy information in the article. There are some not best citations but this should be discussed as the information is common knowledge instead of taking out bits and then throwing out the rest.  I question good faith. I may have an opinion and want people to know the truth but as an editor I agree to do it fairly. Venus Copernicus (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SUDDEN BARRAGE OF INCREMENTAL BLANKING