Talk:Werner Erhard/Archive 1

message: The description of the reasoning behind WE's founding of the Hunger Project contained a lot of bias for him. I haven't gone through the rest of the entry this though, just fixed what I saw in the Hunger Project section.
This article only cites one book, and one which is obviously negatively slanted against WE. I have not much experience or knowledge of WE and have no strong feelings either way about the man or his work, as I don't have enough information. But whoever wrote or edited this article should realize its obvious bias gives it a specious air.
- Uh, yeah.  I'm not sure "obviously negatively slanted" really captures it.  How about hatchet job?  I'm attempting to whittle away at some of the POV weasel words and editorializing, but there is a lot to work down.  Hope others will help. Ratagonia 03:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The matters regarding the IRS settlement need to remain as 'alleged' until some solid evidence can be produced. It is insufficient to post a source as biased as www.wernererhard.com.
: Here's a story from Time Magazine that references the settlement: The Best Of Est? by Charlotte Faltermayer. I also found a Findlaw entry for the case of Erhard v IRS, though I am not sure if this was the final ruling or one that was later appealed. --Zippy 23:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide sources for above claims.  Yours, Smeelgova 21:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, one way you can do it is look at the dates on the items.  The court case for the sham transactions was argued and decided in 1994 and 1995, respectively.  The $200,000 was decided as a verdict in 1996 Los Angeles Daily News.  You can contact the Los Angeles Daily News for verification.  It should also be in Lexis-Nexis from that date.  Here's another link:  Werner Erhard and $200,000.
 Sm1969 05:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under 'Legal Strife' 

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

message: After following a link from another website to this one, it found this heading to be completely inflammatory as it was on the other site.  To use a quote from a magazine article, of an electronics engineer who was giving HIS opinion, as a heading in an encyclopedia seems COMPLETELY out of line.  This is not a gossip magazine and is NOT the place for sensationalism in any form, not to mention that this was someone's opinion now showing up in an encyclopedia THIRD hand.
- Absolutely.  This is an example of a specious source.  There is no reason to believe that the source is at all credible.  I will remove it. Ratagonia 01:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pulling the Strings" 

message: I removed the reference to WE's campaign contributions under the family section.  Reasons: a. not relevant; b. the way it was written, it made it sound sleazy, like the contributions were funneled through WEA.  One lists one's employer on campaign contribution forms, that's all.  He also gave money to John McCain and (oh my gosh), a Democrat!  Not relevant, seemed like it was put in there to appear sleazy/POV. Ratagonia 02:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no home address listed on that other site, it is an article where she is interviewed.  And the Rosenberg picture is part of a publicity press packet, explicitly for such a purpose.  Smee 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  under "Family" 

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

message: Smeelgova and anyone else editing on this article, I cannot think of any reason for a link to the address of a private and apparently living person in an encyclopedia article. Just because it is available via voter registration information doesn't justify putting it in an encyclopedia article.  I am removing it until someone editing this article can provide a valid justification that suits encyclopedic standards. Buddysystem 20:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking to a private person's address

message: I have a question about this often cited refernce in this article. I've got a copy of this book and as I look at it, I cannot find a single citation of where any of the information in the book comes from. While it appears the author had access to many of the people around Werner Erhard, why are there not citations like you find in other non-fiction books?  If we are trying to write as factual an article as possible, should we be concerned about using this reference so heavily?  What do other people editing this article think about this?Buddysystem 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Steven Pressman's Book Outrageous Betrayal

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

message: "Successive" has a specific legal meaning that may or may not apply.  Just saying "Organizations" is clearer and technically correct (2 places).
"Sold etc.", while true, is inappropriate in this place.  Landmark Education currently offers Erhard-material based programs.  The sale of the intellectual property to Landmark is covered elsewhere in the article.
"Jack Frost" was used as a tradename.  An alias is a name used to mislead the public.  "Jack Frost" was just a sales gimmick (see Bartley p 42/43).  Ratagonia 07:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A few changes

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