Talk:Erhard Seminars Training

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Erhard Seminars Training article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
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


Contents

[edit] Ellen Erhard vs. IRS case

Just read the casefile again, as reffed, and I fail to see its relevance to anything other than fine detail of IRS law. I see an oblique relationship to Werner, and perhaps it should be a 'see also' or some such there. But I fail to see any relevance to est. Can you enlighten me? Ratagonia 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It is formatted as another relevant reference. The case deals with Werner's earnings, and as such his ventures are relevant. Smee 05:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
    • But.. read it. There's almost nothing there. Again, possibly relevant to the Werner Erhard page, but a hard case to make to this page, est. Seems totally irrelevant to me. Can someone else take a look at it and render an opinion. Ratagonia 01:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I will shortly be adding some more material to show relevance, in conjunction with other legal histocial material... Smee 04:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
  • There is no reason for this case to be in this article. It doesn't refer to the organisation that the article is about and there isn't any purpose that I can see other than to deliberately give a negative impression.Barnham 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • More relevance will be seen very shortly as other public domain legal cases are added as well... Smee 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
      • I do not see the relevance of the this section to this article, perhaps it should just be on the Werner Erhard Article, if even there at all.Ebay3 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the Ellen Erhard case. Anyone is welcome, or course, to reintroduce it with additional information that makes it relevant to Erhard Seminars Training Ratagonia 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced tag

I have tagged this page as unbalanced, as the anti-est viewpoint dominates and the pro-est one is nearly totally absent. The few sections that do mention those with a positive view of est are written in highly negative POV. I'm unsure of the correct balance of pro/anti, but the pro side needs to be more prominently represented than it is currently. Viciouslies 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The front part of the article seems to be loaded with references to Steve Pressmans' Book "Outrageous Betrayal". This book definitely comes from the anti-est viewpoint. Given it is cited 8 times at the begining of the article I am inclined to agree with viouslies. Is there an alternative book reference available? Ebay3 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The book is a highly reputable, secondary source. The only other mainly autobiographical works were POV in the other direction... But for additional sources, you might want to check this Google Books search. Smee 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Navigational box

  • The navigational box is at the very bottom of the article, and is therefore unobtrusive. It pulls highly correlated articles together for the reader's interest, and for ease of navigation for editors. Smee 21:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
  • It is a very POV box as has been discussed by other editors (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:LandmarkForum) and doesn't add anything to the article.Barnham 21:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It is a very navigational tool. As you keep reverting this, I will set up a request for comment. Smee 21:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Request for comment - Navigational box at bottom of article

  • Talk:Erhard Seminars Training -- Whether or not to include navigational box to related articles {{LandmarkForum}}, at the bottom of the article Erhard Seminars Training. 21:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Previously involved editors

Comment by Smee
  1. Previous discussion took place at Template talk:LandmarkForum, and many of the suggestions of User:Jossi and User:AJackl were voluntarily implemented by myself.
  2. The navigational box is at the bottom of the article, therefore it is unobstructive to the article itself.
  3. It is useful to the reader as a navigational tool, seeking more information on related articles.
  4. It is useful to the editor as a navigational tool, seeking information/sources/material on a related theme.
  5. It is NPOV, because all that is included in the box are the names of the other articles, presented in a neutral manner.

Smee 21:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

Comment by Ratagonia
  • Appropriate to have the Landmark box on this article. Ratagonia 01:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My apologies. Further looking at the two Landmark templates leads me to conclude that neither template is mature enough to be attached to articles yet. There is a HUGE problem with entangling est/Landmark/WEA/Werner, etc. on the wiki, that I hope we are all working on, and AFTER that, a template the includes some or all of it might be appropriate. But, would be hard, given Landmark's desire to distinguish itself from WEA and est. Given this is an article about a living company, the desire of Landmark to maintain separation should be given considerable weight. Thus, my comment is INAPPROPRIATE to include this Template at this time. Ratagonia 02:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by Ebay3
  • This is a historical article. I don't think the box is needed. I tend to agree with ratagonia and besides, there are enough references to the Landmark Forum else where in the article. Those are my thoughts Ebay3 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by FreedomByDesign
  • There are inconsistencies in naming and it is not clear what value this box adds beyond what is already in the article. FreedomByDesign 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by AJackl
  • I remain strongly opposed to this template as it mis characterizes relationships between organizations and is an inherently POV structure. It also adds little new information to the article. It should be deleted. This is all on top of that almost all the links point to events and organization that did not even exist in the same time as the est Training. I believe the movie "Semi-Tough" mentioned is the ONLY event or organization that existed at the same time as est. It gets really ridiculous when you think of it that way. Alex Jackl 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by Barnham
  • I am still opposed to this template. It is decidedly POV, it is redundant information and can be found in many other places both in this article and on wikipedia. It's about a different article that there is already a link to, and doesn't summarize what is in this article.
  • I am removing the template based on 5 editors opposed to it and 2 for it.

[edit] Previously uninvolved editors

While templates can indeed be very useful pointers to related topics, the fact that they are only headings and links means that we have to be very careful about what they say, so that they don't subtly push biased assumptions. The article text should have clearly worded, appropriately prominent, unbiased descriptions of the companies and why people think they might be more or less related. (I'm not sure if they do or not; honestly, I don't really understand the nature of the disagreement regarding the companies.) I just feel that if a template is a matter of debate, it's probably not ready for use yet. Since there's significant disagreement about bias, and there's not room in a template to explain the disagreement, my vote is that it should NOT be displayed until it's sufficiently non-controversial that we don't need to argue about it. Instead, make sure the reader can find links to the related articles in the article, and that they understand the nature of those links if it's complicated or under debate. Lunkwill 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncategorized editors

Comment by Pedant17
  • The "LandmarkForum" navigational box provides a useful summary of links in unraveling the connections and information in this whole arena. I would suggest re-naming it to something like "Werneristics" or "Erhardism". -- We can expect the box to develop and mature: we could add many further "see also" or "compare and contrast" links and categories that would enrich the encyclopedia. Lack of alleged "maturity" should not preclude pioneering on Wikipedia. -- One article worth setting up (and including in the navigational box) might address the very question as to the links or lack of links between Erhard/est and Landmark Education. This could concentrate on the known links and analyze the reasons for Landmark Education's apparent desire to suppress the connection -- separately from the sacred "Landmark Education" article (with its hide-bound kowtowing to contemporary commercialism), but firmly linked to it. It would also provide an account of the question "whatever happened to est" -- a valid and intriguing supplement to discussion of Erhard Seminars Training. -- Pedant17 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
All very good points, Pedant17. By creating a new article, you are correct that we could try to avoid the WP:OWN that goes on with the "sacred" as you put it, Landmark Education article. I am sure there are many sourced citations from reputable secondary sources to build an article on this. What would the title of the article be? Smee 06:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
You should reread the Landmark Education article and the conversations on there. There is no mission to separate Landmark from Werner Erhardt and est. It is just that some people are obsessed with Werner Erhardt- I don't know why. The Landmark article is trying to stop from becoming itself the POV article you are describing above. Creating non-notable articles on a topic in order to press a particular POV is against Wikipedia policy so... Alex Jackl 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/r/h/Talk%7EErhard_Seminars_Training_2a18.html"