Talk:Outrageous Betrayal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Outrageous Betrayal has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Outrageous Betrayal article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Full cite

  • For Wikipedia editors, if you need to cite this book somewhere, here is the full cite:
  • Pressman, Steven (1993). Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile. New York: St. Martin's Press, 289. ISBN 0-312-09296-2. 
  • And the code to use - Just change the page number to the specific page, or add {{rp|page number}} immediately next to it with, replacing "page number" with the specific page number or page range from the book:
  • {{cite book | last = Pressman | first = Steven | authorlink = Steven Pressman | coauthors = | title = [[Outrageous Betrayal|Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile]] | publisher = [[St. Martin's Press]] | date = 1993 | location = [[New York]] | pages = 289 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 0-312-09296-2}}

[edit] Biography

I'm reading this article and I know that the book was referred to as a biography, but I can't remember if it was CAN and LE's lawyers or not. Could you indicate in the article if it has been referred to as a biography? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I will try to find sources on this and get back to you. Thanks for the suggestion. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
We do not know the nature of the sources, we only know that some sources were unnamed as per the information in the book itself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Skolnik and Norwick refer to the sources as "confidential sources". Pressman, through counsel, refers to these sources as "protected sources". Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
Per journalistic use, "confidential" or "protected," either nomenclature is more accurate than "unnamed." Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The lead includes mentions of "The Forum", but does not explain what that is. It would be better if this can be clarified in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review PASS

Good work.

  1. The lengthy list of books in Note 6 seemed a bit unnecessary; perhaps cut it down to two or three of the most notable books or authors.
  2. I've never seen the superscripted page number format used in the lawsuit section ([1]:279). Is that a typo?
  3. There was info in the WP:LEDE about "claims that est graduates had made" that I didn't see in the article. I removed it from the lede; maybe you'll wanna put it in the article's body somewhere.
  4. The whole article felt... very slightly... loose in its organization and focus. You may wanna run ith through WP:LoCE, WP:PR etc etc yadda yadda for fine-tuning.. but all in all it's good enough for GA. Congrats! --Ling.Nut (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Addressing points from successful GA review
  • Thank you! I will begin to address these helpful suggestions you have made, and note them here, below. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
  1. Y Done - I took a few referenced sources out of that citation.
  2. Y Done - I removed the superscripted page number, mention of the section of the book itself is enough.
  3. Y Done - Ling.Nut (talk · contribs) already took the initiative to fix that issue in the Lead/Intro.
  4. Y Done - For sure, the next step will be WP:PR to get some more ideas on improving the quality of this article. Thanks for all your help and pointers!

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC).