Talk:Scientology and Werner Erhard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology and Werner Erhard article.
Article policies
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
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
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussion before considering re-nomination:
An entry from Scientology and Werner Erhard appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 2 May 2007.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] New article created

  • New article created, Scientology and Werner Erhard, sourced to (29) citations to referenced material. Smee 03:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Update - (33) citations. Smee 04:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
      • Update - (37) citations. Smee 07:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
  • A significant number of the above references do not support the specific statements in the article they are attributed to. Here are three from among the original 29:

In the section of the article titled “Compared by Academic, Secondary Sources.” The first sentence says:

The press, media and academics have compared and contrasted the techniques utilized by The Forum and the Church of Scientology:

This is supposed to be supported by the next paragraph with three citations. The German Stern (magazine) has compared Landmark Education to the Church of Scientology.[32] The Frankfurter Neue Presse, stated that: "They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church."[33] Australia's The Daily Telegraph cited that The Forum has been described as "Amway meets Scientology".[34]

Here are the misrepresentations in these three citations:

1) Sentence: The German Stern (magazine) has compared Landmark Education to the Church of Scientology.[32] Citation: ^ Soul Strip Tease, Stern, Germany, April 2, 1998. They consistently promise total control to the same people whom are then subjected to total control. A good example to read up on in regards to this is Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Misrepresentation: In the cited article, Scientology is actually compared to something called “Block Training”.

2) Sentence: The Frankfurter Neue Presse, stated that: "They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church." Citation: ^ Green Party detects a scandal in hall rental, Frankfurter Neue Presse, May 29, 1998., by Kristiane Huber. Misprepresentation: This is an article about the rental of a hall in which begins sentence says: “Liederbach. They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church”. The rest of the article is commotion about the Green Party renting a hall to Landmark Education – There is no comparing or contrasting of techniques in the article. The sentence is a generalization that is not attributed to a specific person as a quote.

3) Sentence Australia's The Daily Telegraph cited that The Forum has been described as "Amway meets Scientology".[34] Citation ^ Lalor, Peter. "Why you will find yourself at the Forum", The Daily Telegraph (Australia), February 2, 2002. Misrepresentation: The article cited here is very hard to find and the link provided in the citation goes to another Wiki article on the Daily Telegraph paper in the UK. The actual article that is used as a citation here has one sentence that says, "Cynics describe it as Amway Meets Scientology because of its new age philosophy and recruiting fervor.” Again this is a throw away comment that is not attributed to a specific person and hardly amounts to comparing and contrasting. No comparing or contrasting between the Forum and Scientology takes place in this article.

Lastly the above three references are about Landmark Education , not Werner Erhard or Werner Erhard and Associates. I invite other people to check other references in the article so see if there are any others that do not work. Ebay3 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for providing these citations here with quotes for discussion - they are all from reputable secondary sourced cited material. Any simple perusal from previously un-involved neutral editors will show relatively quickly how the information is relevant and properly sourced/attributed... Smee 05:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
    • No disagreement that the material is cited. I strongly disagree that the information is relevant and properly sourced/attributed. That is why I took the time to lay it all out here. While I respect the time that went into creating the article I believe it has been written with the intention of leaving the reader concluding that there is a stronger link between Werner Erhard/Est and Scientology/L.Ron Hubbard than actually exists. Again I invite other editors to look at the assertions I have made and comment here. Ebay3 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article even here? Let's have every celebrity name who has taken Scientology have a page!? I don't think so. FreedomByDesign (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of template

Usage of the template {{LandmarkForum}} is highly relevant and appropriate to this article, and its subject. The article mentions many of the entities in the template, and the books and media cited in the template reference many of the issues discussed in the article, and vice versa as well... Smee 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

This is an article on 1. Werner Erhardt and 2. Scientology. Arguing that a template on movies should be in this article because both Scietologists and Werner Erhardt have been in movies is about as valid. (I think WE has been in a movie, but I know Travolta, Cruise etc.)If people are interested in WE or in Scientology there are ample links in the article for that. The product Werner Erhardt's company produced has no relationship to the topic- which is the relationship between Scientology and Werner Erhardt. What also makes it SO non-notbale is that mentions of the "Landmark Forum" are totally whacked because that course didn't even exist when any of the Scientology /Werner Erhardt stuff was happening. Please don't use it. It raises the question of why it would be included...Alex Jackl 07:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Landmark Education, Werner Erhard, Werner Erhard and Associates, The Forum, are all discussed in this article, as backed up by multiple citations to reputable secondary sourced citations. The footer is at the bottom of the article, does not disrupt the article itself, and is a navigational tool for readers interested in more information on related subjects. Smee 07:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
Landmark Education is mentioned in one or two places and is Wikilinked to the Landmark Education page. IF a reader - reading about Werner Erhardt and Scientology was interested they could easily click through there. That template is - at best- obliquely related to the topic of the article. It is also contested as a POV set of facts and not an accurate or encyclopedic representation of the facts- as much for what it leaves out as for what it includes. This template is not necessary for this article. Let's remove it and the article will be better for it. Alex Jackl 07:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I have stated my piece above, as the material is relevant and virtually all of the articles in the template are relevant as well, and even discuss the subject matter either within comparative or historical contexts, or both. I will wait to hear from a neutral party regarding commentary on this issue. Smee 07:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
Third Opinion from Markeer

I know next to nothing about the subject of Werner Erhard (and little about Scientology) but had commented on this article in it's recent AfD so glanced here today. Looking at the article and this template I would say it's valuable to first time readers of this subject as a condensed navigation point on related subjects, just as the Scientology box is. There is little to no POV argument to a navbox on a subject appearing on an article page that primarily deals with that subject, and Wikipedia institutionally seeks articles that are of most use to a first time reader. I'm restoring the {{LandmarkForum}} in advance of additional editorial opinion, although I realize that no conversation involving less than 5 people can realistically be considered "consensus". -Markeer 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that the template is itself extremely controversial because it implies relationships that are not accurate and primarily points to different sources than the majority of editors of the Landmark Education page agreed to- concensus was not able to be reached on the template design and it was decided to not use the template because of its POV collection of links. Please read through the detailed discussin above on this matter. Alex Jackl 04:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Alex: I've glanced at the discussion page of {{LandmarkForum}} and if I understand your issues there and above, your concern is about the template itself, and not necessarily on it's inclusion on this page? Is that correct? If so (and without reading through every article regarding Landmark or Erhard) my general opinion would be that any POV issues be addressed at the navbox template talk page, not on individual articles such as this one. The purpose of a navbox is simply to provide readers with links to other wikipedia articles relating to a subject, and as such its inclusion in a related article is generally to be desired. I can of course understand that if a navbox itself has questionable material that should be addressed, but I would say fix (or tweak or discuss altering) the navbox, not removing it from related articles. Looking at the current navbox I can see links to Erhard himself, several of Erhard's organizations, and to a book about the 60 Minutes issue -- all of which are brought up in this article. No, I have not fully familiarized myself with all of this information but at least at a cursory glance, I see some value in the navbox's inclusion here if only for that reason.
I believe that my making a comment here seems to have stepped into an ongoing disagreement between at least two editors, and I have no plans to become some sort of deciding 'vote' on any large range of issues. So to reiterate for stress: my opinion is limited to inclusion of navboxes on articles that relate to the navbox subject. To my mind that's simple pragmatism, and I recommend you seek a broader range of editors at the template talk page to ensure that the navbox be the best it can be for Wikipedia. -Markeer 13:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Looking at the article and this template I would say it's valuable to first time readers of this subject as a condensed navigation point on related subjects, just as the Scientology box is. There is little to no POV argument to a navbox on a subject appearing on an article page that primarily deals with that subject, and Wikipedia institutionally seeks articles that are of most use to a first time reader. " -- Thank you, Markeer - what we have here is a comment in favor of the template usage, for very sound reasoning, coming from a previously uninvolved neutral editor. Nuff said. Smee 05:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
Re-quoting Markeer's quote and saying "'Nuff aid" exactly ignores what he just requested above that he NOT be used as some kind of deciding vote. To withdraw my objections about the template being o nthis page would require RADICAL re-work of the template. I think it simply does not belong here AT ALL. It might belong, as someone below said, on the Werner Erhardt page but the template itself is flawed IMO, starting with its name. I am willing to go talk about the template but it I am little tire dof the knocking heads on that matter. Thanks for your input Markeer- even if I disagree with you about the templates usefulness on this page.Alex Jackl 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral third opinion: The navbox should be on Werner Erhard's article (which it's not), and not here. 11:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC) I retract my opinion, and decided that it should be used in the article, for reasons stated by Markeer. - hmwithtalk 14:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for providing this opinion. Smee 07:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Intro needs some exposition

The intro just leaps into "Werner Erhard initially had a positive response to his education in Scientology beliefs and practices. He purchased books from the Church of Scientology and reached the level of "Grade II". Erhard has been quoted as regarding L. Ron Hubbard as an esteemed philosopher." It needs to explain who Erhard and Hubbard are, and not just assume the reader knows. The article should assume this is the reader's first introduction to these subjects. wikipediatrix 16:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Good points. Can you please give us here on the talk page an example of what you would suggest? Smee 06:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
Nothing complex, just a couple sentences stating that Hubbard's the Scientology guy and Erhard's the EST guy. Some kind of introductory paragraph that feels like an introductory paragraph. wikipediatrix 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Any particular example of language, the way you would have the sentence? Smee 01:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Ftord1960 comments

  • Yes, the Daily Telegraph Source goes to a Wiki description of an English Paper by the same name. I couldn't find the article at all, and applaude EBay3 on their persistence. I imagine the quote EBay3 relays is correct which indicates blatant misleading in this article, perhaps to be tolerated in hack journalism, but certainly not in an encyclopedia.Ftord1960 21:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, the Frankfurter Neue Press Article does not "compare and contrast" Scientology with Landmark Education either. It says what is stated, the "they are suspected of having connections..." where no source is cited. The article is a slanted article assuming and insinuating something bad about Landmark Education with no cited proof. Is this the stuff an encyclopedia should be based on? Is the Frankfurter Neue Press the equivalent of the American National Enquirer? Its Journalism seems about as well substantiated. I'd delete, but I'm arguing for the deletion of the whole. Ftord1960 21:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Earlier I stated that the article was well-sourced. But after seeing EBay3's comments I dug a little deeper. I want to concur that the German Stern nowhere compares Landmark Education to Scientology. Neither does it quote any academic or other media sources as doing so. I retract my statement that this article is "well-sourced". It's looking more like what an old professor of mine used to call a good "snow-job". Since I see no way of arguing this sourcing accurate I have deleted the sentence. Ftord1960 19:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Please, do not delete the reputable secondary sourced citations themselves. If you somehow feel that something is unintentionally inaccurate or may be perceived to be misleading, discuss it here on the talk page, and keep the actual citation in the article, but merely adjust the information the citation is backing up / quoting. Smee 22:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
      • Colleague Ftord1960 has done a good job of researching these citations, and stating clearly and thoroughly why they should, nay, must be removed from the article. I support their removal and am reverting colleague Smee's revision. Ratagonia 23:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Looks like colleague Salladays has already reverted the reversion. Ratagonia 23:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not remove secondary sourced reputable citations. Modify the context if you will, but please do not remove the material. Smee 04:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
    • I have properly adjusted the context describing the material, as to be in-line with the references. Please do not remove the material itself, but rather discuss here. The citations are reputable secondary sources, and thus this is not original research in any regard. Smee 06:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
I appreciate the detective work you guys did to root this stuff out. Thanks for your work! I have been at a conference and too busy. Just because a citation is cited correctly doe snot mean it belongs in the article and poor citations should be removed. Alex Jackl 07:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
And that is precisely why I have adjusted the context describing them, so that the reputable secondary sourced citations are in the proper context and referenced appropriately. Smee 07:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Ajackl, please do not revert, you did not even make any attempt to comment on the changes that I made to the context of the information in question. Smee 07:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Allow me to repeat the research above:

Here are the misrepresentations in these three citations:

1) Sentence: The German Stern (magazine) has compared Landmark Education to the Church of Scientology.[32] Citation: ^ Soul Strip Tease, Stern, Germany, April 2, 1998. They consistently promise total control to the same people whom are then subjected to total control. A good example to read up on in regards to this is Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Misrepresentation: In the cited article, Scientology is actually compared to something called “Block Training”.

2) Sentence: The Frankfurter Neue Presse, stated that: "They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church." Citation: ^ Green Party detects a scandal in hall rental, Frankfurter Neue Presse, May 29, 1998., by Kristiane Huber. Misprepresentation: This is an article about the rental of a hall in which begins sentence says: “Liederbach. They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church”. The rest of the article is commotion about the Green Party renting a hall to Landmark Education – There is no comparing or contrasting of techniques in the article. The sentence is a generalization that is not attributed to a specific person as a quote.

3) Sentence Australia's The Daily Telegraph cited that The Forum has been described as "Amway meets Scientology".[34] Citation ^ Lalor, Peter. "Why you will find yourself at the Forum", The Daily Telegraph (Australia), February 2, 2002. Misrepresentation: The article cited here is very hard to find and the link provided in the citation goes to another Wiki article on the Daily Telegraph paper in the UK. The actual article that is used as a citation here has one sentence that says, "Cynics describe it as Amway Meets Scientology because of its new age philosophy and recruiting fervor.” Again this is a throw away comment that is not attributed to a specific person and hardly amounts to comparing and contrasting. No comparing or contrasting between the Forum and Scientology takes place in this article.

Lastly the above three references are about Landmark Education , not Werner Erhard or Werner Erhard and Associates. I invite other people to check other references in the article so see if there are any others that do not work. Ebay3 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, Ebay3. In my opinion, these are wiki-textbook examples of miss-summation of material, and material that should NOT be included in a Wiki article. There is no there, there. These three articles say nothing, other than passing on rumors. They certainly do not fit the lead statement of the section: "The press, media and academics have compared and contrasted the techniques utilized by The Forum and by the Church of Scientology:". They are, instead, throwaway lines; repeated gossip and innuendo (not attributed); and repetition of opinions from inexpert members of the general public. That they are sourced to a website that purports to reproduce articles from German magazines (sometimes with changes and enlargements; and probably in translation) is even more suspect. Please do not bring this material back into this article.

If you don't 'get it', the problem is that the statements in the Wiki article are not accurate summations of what is said in the source. They are quoted out of context, or talking about something else. Also, these are TERTIARY sources, not secondary - a copy (in translation, with editing) of the German magazines is not a reliable secondary source. Also, it is misleading to label these as they are labeled, because it is not true (no matter how many times you repeat that it is true, it is still not true). If you wanted to add a section labelled "Throwaway lines, repetition of rumors, opinions of inexpert persons and oblique references", then these citations would fit in there well - but we don't include that stuff in the Wiki because it is irrelevant and not-helpful.

Please do not waste our time with further reversions on this issue. This stuff is JUNK! Stop it! This stuff is SO BAD. Read it. Ratagonia 15:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Reputable secondary citations should remain
  • The citations themselves are to secondary sources that accurately satisfy WP:RS. The material in context was edited by myself so as to better fit the citations themselves and quotes from them. It is preferable that the citations remain in the article, and rather that the context instead be changed to suit. Smee 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
    • The citations are to a copy of a secondary source, therefore, there is some grey area in there. We don't know if the original was in English, or whether it was accurately translated. If you'd like to dig out the citations to the secondary source, that would be better.
    • BUT- WP:RS says: "What is a reliable source?
    • Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
    • The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors"
    • Please take a careful look at the exact citations. While Stern (etc) CAN be a RS, in these cases they merely repeated rumor and innuendo. This does not fit the description of the section, which is, as you may remember, is "The press, media and academics have compared and contrasted the techniques utilized by The Forum and by the Church of Scientology:".
    • This is about the clearest case of miss-summation I have seen. Whether it comes from an RS or not is irrelevant - the material is not related to the article. The implied attributions have no expertise. It is poor material, not worthy of Wiki.
    • You are a very good wikipedian, Smee, and my respect for you has grown as I have had to improve my own wiki-skills when we match keyboards. This is a very clear-cut case, Smee, perhaps shown by your repetition of the "is too a RS" drum. That is not the point, the point is that the material is irrelevant to the article. Please move on to another issue. This particular section is already rich with Reliably Sourced and fully relevant material - these three little tidbits, even if the sources supported the summation, would add very little to the article. Ratagonia 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, the citations do add to the article, and they are already properly cited. Please note that the external links within some of the citations are simply an added bonus -- they are already fully cited appropriately. The information should be added back into the article, and a discussion should be begun here as to how to attribute the context appropriately, as opposed to simply outright removal of the material. Smee 20:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
OK, I'll play, even though I think it is an example of WP:SNOW. Perhaps the name of the section, and the initial sentance should be changed to more accurately reflect the cited material. Please take a stab at that. Then, let's look at each reference, and see if we can get something that fits in the "Scientology and Werner Erhard" article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ratagonia (talk • contribs).

[edit] Stern Reference

Here's the first half of the article in Stern, as quoted at http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/survey/bq.htm (down near the bottom of the page, at about 90%):

Soul Strip Tease - Germany - April 2, 1998 - "Stern"
The advertisements sound tempting, what personality trainers promise. For example, "more success in profession and studies." Caution is advised: the psychological market has its share of charlatans.
The trilling whistle brings the sixteen men and women out of their deep sleep with a start. The night was short. Work had gone until the early morning hours. The order is to show up in athletic gear and double-time up and down the mountain. Every morning the same ritual. This is followed on the schedule everyday by the soul strip tease. In group sessions, for hours on end, the participants talk about their weaknesses and expose their innermost fears. The dams burst and tears flow. The goal of the five-day psychological drill is the heightening of self-awareness.
Personality training is part of the trend. Whoever is looking for a job today or wants to professionally advance himself needs, above anything else, a personality. He is supposed to be capable of handling conflicts, flexible yet decisive, socially competent and emotionally intelligent. Some seminar providers make tempting promises: they talk of breakthroughs to success, of more energy and joy of life, and of overcoming individual obstacles. All that in just a few days: psycho-training as a miracle weapon.
The offers range from a self-awareness course on a sailboat and fire drills for power training to bizarre psychological exercises. However, caution is advised. This field employs many who have co-trained and whom have been trained by people ranging from management trainers and self-declared soul healers to dangerous psychological gurus.
Before one agrees to psychological training, a few points need to be checked out. Does the trainer consider each person individually, or are all participants sold the same recipe? In a seminar, each person must be able to decide for himself whether he wants to participate, or if he would rather leave. What education does the person who is giving the seminar have? (Basic therapist training lasts several years.) If these questions are cut short or answered only unwillingly, one should look around for a different provider.
Otherwise, psychological training can quickly turn into a nightmare of the sort experienced by Martin Lell. Frustrated by his studies and a poor job outlook, the physics student took a three-day seminar from Landmark Education. Afterwards he was enthused: "I felt limitlessly free, all restrictions were gone. The world belonged to me, and everything was possible." Then came his psychological collapse. "I suddenly noticed how absurd it all was." "Brainwashing is an insidious process of destabilization and modification by manipulating social and psychological factors of influence," wrote acknowledged sect expert and psychology professor Margaret Singer. Nobody can defend themselves against the application of subtle methods of manipulation. "It was a type of hypnosis from which you could not escape," verified Martin Lell. The tricks of the process are known. They include strict rules, long work hours, food and sleep deprivation, bans on communication, physical exercise, cumbersome emotional exercises and a clever application of group pressure. It is the combination of these individual factors which makes even the strong give in. Only those who submit will advance personally, promise the providers. The choreography of the seminar has been worked out perfectly. The euphoria at the end is a hard and fast component of psycho-training.
The accomplishment, however, is not usually an individually tailored, voluntary modification, but a coerced tractability. In many psycho-courses, this subordination is part of the system. "The participants are supposed to learn to accept indisputableness in order to be able to live with it," stated Hans-Christian Doering, business manager of Block Training, a rigid psycho-drill which is supposed to have already taken in several thousand participants. That does not differentiate Block from other controversial providers. They consistently promise total control to the same people whom are then subjected to total control. A good example to read up on in regards to this is Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.
"We finally have to get away from the concept of "sects," Juergen Keltsch, member of the Enquete Commission "Sects and Psycho-groups" has demanded. "The decisive factors are the methods which are used." American journalist Paul Keegan stated how people are affected by behavioral psychology after a visit to the U.S. psycho-cult, Lifespring: "We gave up control of our lives and we felt liberated. We said that we felt fantastic because that was how we were conditioned to feel."

(END QUOTATION)

The summation is: "The German Stern (magazine) described techniques used by Landmark Education, and cited Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard as an example of totalitarianism.[44]"

Problems: 1. The copy of the article does not list the author, therefore we cannot inspect the credentials of the author to verify expertise. 2. The article DOES describe techniques used by "psycho-trainers" and mentions Landmark Education by name; but it does not compare and contrast Scientology with est, The Forum, or The Landmark Forum. 3. it does not cite Hubbard as an example of totalitarianism (which is a form of political organization), but does make a reference to him as "promising total control... then subjected to total control." - not really the same thing, though sometimes used that way in casual conversation (like calling someone a Fascist or Nazi).

The article is about "psycho-training" and is skeptical, mentions some techniques, mentions Landmark Education by name, quotes from an individual who had a bad experience with LE, then talks about Block Training, then mentions Hubbard as an example of a control-offering control-freak. Landmark Education is not Werner Erhard. L Ron Hubbard is not Scientology. This article mentions both Hubbard and LE, but only ties them together very tangentally. LE is not WE, LRH is not CoS. 'Scientology and Werner Erhard' is the subject of this article.

ACTION- perhaps, colleague Smee, you could propose a summation that is accurate to the article quoted above, and then we could have a RfC on whether that is relevant to this article. Ratagonia 21:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed material

I have had enough of this back and forth broken record. The material has been removed, and only exists now as citations. Smee 15:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] CBS transcript

At 1811 hours on 2007-07-05 a Wikipedian wrote:

Due to false statement the archive of this program was deleted by CBS Legal; <ref>Snider, Suzanne. [[EST, Werner Erhard, and the Corporatization of Self-Help | http://www.believermag.com/issues/200305/?read=article_snider]], The Believer, May 2003.</ref> and Erhard withdrew the lawsuit before the court reached a decision.

The reference given does not entirely justify this formulation: let's rewrite as:

CBS made a transcript of a segment of its broadcast unavailable with the disclaimer "This segment has been deleted at the request of CBS News for legal or copyright reasons."<ref> Snider, Suzanne: [http://www.believermag.com/issues/200305/?read=article_snide | ["est, Werner Erhard, and the Corporatization of Self-Help"], ''The Believer'', May 2003. </ref>

Erhard withdrew his lawsuit before the court reached a decision.

-- Pedant17 02:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larry King Live image

At 1817 hours on 2007-07-05 a Wikipedian removed a image:

[[Image:Werner Erhard Larry King Live.jpg|90px|right|frame|Werner Erhard on ''[[Larry King Live]]'', 12/8/1993.<br>12/20/93 program [http://www.holysmoke.org/heber/heber07.htm transcript].]]

with the edit-summary "removed picture - does not have copyright permission".

Since the status of the image remains unresolved and a case for its relevance exists, let's restore the image until we have a resolution, bearing in mind that the WP:DEL policy states "content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page". -- Pedant17 02:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quoting the published opinions of cited authors

At 1836 hours on 2007-07-05 a Wikipedian removed a sentence:

Erhard had hired [[Scientologist]]s in order to develop these techniques as his own.<ref name="stark" />

with the edit-summary "removed author's opinion, not supported by fact".

As no reference appears to confound the removed authorial statement, let's restore the sentence as:

Stark and Bainbridge state that Erhard had hired [[Scientologist]]s in order to develop these techniques as his own.<ref name="stark" />

thus giving Stark and Bainbridge a specific and cited role in the assertion and providing Wikipedians with the opportunity and the place to add contrasting/balancing evidence (if available).

-- Pedant17 02:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of allegedly duplicated material

At 1845 hours on 2007-07-05 a Wikipedian removed a block of text, thus:

In more [[as of 2007|recent]] years, [[academic]]s and the press have compared, contrasted and linked Scientology techniques with those used in [[Landmark Education|The Forum]]<ref name="telegraph" /><ref name="meltonnewage" /><ref name="oddgods" /><ref name="Kuefner" /><ref name="vasquez" />, the initial materials of which Erhard developed<ref>{{cite news | last = Clancy | first = Ray | coauthors = | title = Professionals Fall Prey To New Age Gurus | work = [[The Times]] | pages = | language = [[English (language)|English]] | publisher = | date = July 21, 1992 | url = http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark27.html | accessdate = }} <br>"A year ago Landmark Education International, based in Covent Garden, London, changed its name from Werner Erhard and Associates."</ref><ref>{{cite book | last = Larson | first = Bob | authorlink = Bob Larson | coauthors = | title = [[Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality]] | publisher = Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. | date = 2004 | location = | pages = 197 | url = | doi = | id = ISBN 084236417X}} <br>"Best known for founding est, Erhard announced in 1984 that the est training was being 'retired.' In its place was a new course produced by Werner Erhard and Associates. In 1985 that course was redesigned and retitled Landmark Forum."</ref><ref>{{cite book | last = Chappell | first = Clive | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Reconstructing the Lifelong Learner | publisher = Routledge | date = 2003 | location = | pages = 94 | url = | doi = | id = ISBN 0415263476}} <br>"The Landmark Education Corporation was founded in 1991 when Werner Erhard and Associates was purchased by a group of former employees... Based on Erhard's 'technology', Landmark developed Erhard's original approach into the Landmark Forum \x{2014} a short training course claiming to offer personal growth and transformation."</ref><ref>{{cite news | last = Pinzur | first = Matthew I. | coauthors = Rob Barry | title = New school to open amid high hopes: The founders of a new charter school -- the first in Miami Beach -- are active in a controversial self-awareness group. | work = [[Miami Herald]] | pages = | language = | publisher = | date = July 16, 2006 | url = http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark218.html | accessdate = }} <br>"Landmark has its roots in Erhard Seminars Training, or est, the personal-growth program created in the 1970s by ex-Scientologist Werner Erhard... Erhard dropped from public view in 1991 after selling the est system to Landmark, which is now operated by two siblings."</ref><ref>{{cite news | last = Hellard | first = Peta | coauthors = | title = Stress fear in $700 child forum: WA children as young as eight who attend "life-changing" coaching sessions by a controversial US company could have difficulty with their schoolwork afterwards, according to experts. | work = The Sunday Times, Australia | pages = | language = | publisher = | date = June 11, 2006 | url = http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark216.html | accessdate = }} <br>"Previously known as Est, Landmark Education was founded in 1971 by Werner Erhard, a former used-car and door-to-door encyclopedia salesman, after he quit Scientology."</ref><ref>{{cite news | last = Silva | first = Horacio | coauthors = | title = The Cult of Fashion | work = [[The New York Times]] | pages = | language = | publisher = | date = August 28, 2005 | url = http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark90.html | accessdate = }} <br>"But its impact is nothing compared with that of Landmark Forum, called est in an earlier incarnation, which has all but seduced the front row."</ref><ref>{{cite news | last = O\x{2019}Brien | first = James | coauthors = | title = Defending Your Life: The Landmark Forum is a self-help program that offers to make you anew, more powerful dude. The catch? Try three days of scant sleep, humiliating revelations, and verbal abuse. So why are people signing up by the thousands? | work = [[GQ Magazine]] | pages = | language = | publisher = | date = May 2005 | url = http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark87.html | accessdate = }} <br>"The Landmark Forum is the streamlined, slightly gentler offspring of that pinnacle of the 70\x{2019}s encounter movement, EST... In 1991, with lawsuits pending and a potentially damning 60 Minutes exposé about to create loads of bad publicity, Erhard sold the technology of transformation to a group of his former employees and split the country."</ref><ref>{{cite news | last = Libaw | first = Oliver | coauthors = | title = 'Transformation' in a Weekend? - Based on EST, the Landmark Forum Says It Can Help People Become Happier and More Productive | work = [[ABC News]] | pages = | language = | publisher = [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] | date = [[August 13]], [[2002]] | url = http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark76.html | accessdate = }}</ref>. Currently, Scientology employs a practice called the "Est Repair Rundown" to rid individuals of impurities specifically related to the Est Training or The Forum. [[Landmark Education]] in comments to the media attributes the bad press surrounding Erhard to the Church of Scientology.<ref name="westword" />

with the edit-summary "this article is very long and has material repeated - I am removing material that is already in the article".

As the article did not quote Clancy elsewhere, nor Larson, nor Chappell, nor Pinzur, nor Hellard, nor Silva, nor O'Brien, nor the particular article by Libaw, we cannot accept this deleted material as repetition. As the article before this deletion consisted of a mere 38,187 bytes, we cannot accept the characterization of the article as "very long" as any sort of justification for deleting material demonstrating the rich variety of well-sourced material on the subject. Even if we accepted that the article appeared "very long", the Wikipedia:Article size guidelines do not sanction deletion in such cases -- rather they provide guidelines for splitting the article in question. Let's restore this material.

-- Pedant17 02:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moscow interview

At 18:58 on 5 July 2007 a Wikipedian removed a block of text, thus:

On [[8 December]] 1993,<ref name="wakefield"> {{cite news | last = Wakefield | first = Dan | coauthors = | title = Erhard's Life After Est: Erhard in Exile | work = COMMON BOUNDARY: Between Spirituality and Psychotherapy | pages = | language = | publisher = | date = March/April 1994 | url = http://www.esatclear.ie/~dialogueireland/landmark/lifeafterest.htm | accessdate = }} </ref> [[Larry King]] interviewed Erhard via satellite, from [[Moscow, Russia]]<ref name="navarro" />. Erhard told Larry King that he believed Scientologists had hired "hit men" to kill him -- and gave this as his reason for fleeing the United States.<ref name="navarro" /> He stated that he did not wish to come back to the United States for fear of further "harassment" from Scientology.<ref name="wakefield" />

with the comment "60 Minutes broadcast - removed material repeated two other times in article)"; thus removing an additional reference, orphaning a further reference to Wakefield, potentially introducing confusion between a 60 Minutes broadcast and one of two separate Larry King broadcasts, and depriving readers of amplification/variation of material summarized in the then introduction to the article. This leaves the only reference to the Moscow interview as undesirably reliant on a self-published source (Navaro and Navarro). Let's restore this material.

-- Pedant17 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing Pressman and Lewis

At 05:19 on 6 July 2007 a Wikipedian reduced a block of text, thus:

Erhard later decided to have some of his staff at [[Mind Dynamics]] enroll in Scientology communications coursework as a way to train them in [[sales]]-techniques.<ref name="pressman" /><ref name="lewis" /> When Erhard started his own group, [[Erhard Seminars Training]], he incorporated portions of Scientology practices into his training, initially including the usage of the [[e-meter]].<ref name="pressman" /> L. Ron Hubbard and the [[Church of Scientology]] developed a negative attitude to this usage of their materials and ideas. In 1992, the [[Church of Scientology]] listed Erhard as a "[[Suppressive Person]]".<ref name="suppressive" /><ref name="westword" /><ref name="enemies" /><ref name="exile" />

became:

In 1992, the [[Church of Scientology]] listed Erhard as a "[[Suppressive Person]]".<ref name="suppressive" /><ref name="westword" /><ref name="enemies" /><ref name="exile" />

with the edit-summary "improper sourcing". Let's restore this material with separate citations to allow sourcing to and quotations from specific page numbers in the works of Pressman (pages 25 - 31) and Lewis (pages 382 - 387), who have each proven themselves valuable sources for information pertaining to the subject-matter of this article.

-- Pedant17 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Introduction

What is currently at the top of this page is not an introduction. Let's create an apporpriate beginning to this article. An introduction should introduce a topic and provide an overview, not launch into content handled later in the article, as it does in this one. In my view what is at the top of this article really belongs under the later hearding, "Initial Positive Response to Scientology". --Saladdays 19:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what are you talking about? The current intro is far more of a proper Wikipedia article intro than your own last edit of it, which made zero structural sense and started the article with a header. An article is supposed to tell in its very first sentence what the relationship is between the two things named in the article and thus justify its existence. wikipediatrix 19:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what a mess!

From its non-sequitur of an introductory paragraph to its closing muddled references section, this article is an incredibly poorly written hodgepodge of randomly arranged statements, completely devoid of context or meaning. Someone who doesn't have a dog in the Scientology vs. Erhard pissing contest really needs to redo this mess from stern to stem. wikipediatrix 00:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On grammar

At 05:23 on 6 July 2007 a Wikipedian changed the sentence:

"Erhard subsequently retired and left the United States shortly prior to 60 Minutes airing a critical broadcast (3 March 1991)"

to:

"Erhard subsequently retired and left the United States prior to 60 Minutes airing a critical broadcast (3 March 1991)"

with the edit-summary "grammatical". Since English grammar uses adverbs to qualify adverbs quite standardly, let us not spuriously label significant semantic changes as grammatical ones.

-- Pedant17 03:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paraphrasing, embellishment and out-of-context misrepresentation of something-or-other

At 05:34 on 6 July 2007 a Wikipedian excised the entire section "Incorporation of Scientological techniques into Erhard Seminars Training and into The Forum", commenting in the edit-summary: "section is paraphrased from sourcing, embellished and quoted out of context. It is misrepresentative."

The deleted section read as follows:

== Incorporation of Scientological techniques into Erhard Seminars Training and into The Forum == [[William Warren Bartley | Bartley]] (Erhard's first biographer) characterized Scientology as one of the "major steps" in the development of Erhard's "independent training", stating that "Werner encouraged his whole staff to take the Scientology communication course, and hired Peter Monk to help train them."<ref name="bartley"> 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. 121, 146-7. </ref> Pressman reports that: "all est consultants had received extensive training in the Scientology practice of confessional auditing sessions."<ref> [[Pressman, Steven]], ''[[Outrageous Betrayal]]'', p.125-126<BR> "Still enamored of the Scientology practice of auditing, Erhard had incorporated Scientology's confessional practice into est's 'consulting services group', which was patterned after Hubbard's teams of auditors and organized as a separate branch of est. Under the overall supervision of Bob Larzelere, all est consultants received extensive training in the Scientology practice of confessional auditing sessions in which the consultant (or auditor, in the case of Scientology) asked a series of questions designed to elicit frank responses on topics ranging from personal matters and job satisfaction to loyalty to Erhard."</ref> According to Stark and Bainbridge's ''The Future of Religion'', Erhard hired two Scientologists to specifically adapt Scientology practices for his own usage.<ref name="stark">{{cite book | last = Stark | first = Rodney | authorlink = | coauthors = William Sims Bainbridge | title = [[The Future of Religion|The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation]] | publisher = University of California Press | date = 1986 | location = | pages = Page 182. | url = | doi = | id = ISBN 0520057317}} </ref> Simon Evans describes Erhard as a "Scientology renegade".<ref> {{cite news | last = Evans | first = Simon | coauthors = | title = Dangers of a musical hit with bells on | work = The Birmingham Post | pages = | language = | publisher = Midland Newspapers Limited | date = July 8, 1999 | url = | accessdate = }} </ref> Lewis writes that Erhard acknowledged some of the [[terminology]] utilized in Est and later in The Forum as "partially taken from Scientology."<ref name="lewis" /> Vasquez has made comparisons between the [[jargon]] used by [[Landmark Education]] and that witnessed by her during her experiences with Scientology in France.<ref name="vasquez" /> Lewis in ''Odd Gods'' portrays a technique (called the "danger process") utilized on the second day of the Est Training as: "an exercise that Erhard had adapted from the Scientology communications course."<ref name="lewis" /> Lewis described the "danger processs", writing that a row of the audience would stand on stage while one person would "bullbait" all of the participants at once.<ref name="lewis" /> [[J. Gordon Melton|Melton]] and Lewis also note that Erhard Seminars Training used the Scientology techniques of "bullbaiting" and "confronts".<ref name="meltonnewage">{{cite book | last = Melton | first = J. Gordon | authorlink = J. Gordon Melton | coauthors = James R. Lewis | title = Perspectives on the New Age | publisher = SUNY Press | date = 1992 | location = | pages = 132 | url = | doi = | id = ISBN 079141213X}} </ref> Books on Scientology describe this technique of "bull-baiting" as developed by L. Ron Hubbard.<ref name="meltonnewage" /><ref name="inside"> {{cite book | last = Kaufman | first = Robert | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = [[Inside Scientology]] | publisher = [[Olympia Press]] | date = 1972 | location = | pages = Chapter: Raw Meat | url = http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/isd/isd-1a.htm | doi = | id = ISBN 0700401105 , ISBN 978-0700401109}}<br>"To help the trainee acquire this ability, Hubbard devised a drill in which a coach played the role of a preclear, rampant with reactive mind and out to shake up the auditor in any way possible. Hubbard called the drill 'bull-baiting.'"</ref><ref name="scandal"> {{cite book | last = Cooper | first = Paulette | authorlink = Paulette Cooper | coauthors = | title = [[The Scandal of Scientology]] | publisher = Tower Publications | date = 1971 | location = | pages = Chapter 17: The Secret Scientology Sessions | url = http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos-17.html | doi = | id = }}<br>"The second T.R. is called "Bull Baiting" and it is somewhat similar; one Scientologist again stares directly at the other without moving, only this time the other partner tries to make the immobile one "flinch" or react by insulting him, humoring him, taunting him, or leading him on — usually about his physical flaws or sexual problems."</ref> According to Lande, Werner Erhard also incorporated the "cause" concept from Scientology into Erhard Seminars Training,<ref> {{cite book | last = Lande | first = Nathaniel | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Mindstyles, Lifestyles: A Comprehensive Overview of Today's Life-changing Philosophies | publisher = Price/Stern/Sloan | date = 1976 | location = | pages = 133, 135, 143. | url = | doi = | id = }} </ref> and Wilson also recognized that the "at cause" concept in est had "clear echoes" from Scientology.<ref name="wilson"> {{cite book | last = Wilson | first = Brian R. | authorlink = | coauthors = Karel Dobbelaere | title = A Time to Chant: The Soka Gakkai Buddhists in Britain | publisher = [[Oxford University Press]] | date = 1994 | location = | pages = 221 | url = | doi = | id = ISBN 0198279159}} </ref> Bartley quotes Erhard as explaining that he felt est did not equate to Scientology, stating: "The est training is quite different from Scientology practices and processes."<ref name="bartley" /> Baerbel Schwertfeger quotes how a book (with a foreword by Werner Erhard) published in the early 1980s summarized est: ''Es ist Scientology ohne den Hokuspokus'' ("It's Scientology without the hocus-pocus").<ref> Baerbel Schwertfeger, Vorwort [Foreword]. In : Martin Lell: ''Das Forum: Protokoll einer Gehirnwäsche: Der Psycho-Konzern Landmark Education'' [The Forum: Account of a Brainwashing: The Psycho-Outfit Landmark Education], Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich, 1997. Second edition. Page 8. ISBN 3-423-36021-6 </ref>

The omitted section references a plethora of well-cited sources, so some paraphrasing in compressing the material into the framework of a single Wikipedia article may seem acceptable. The Wikipedian deleting the material has not identified which specific instances of paraphrasing (if any) seem unacceptable, and most of the references in the text concerned support any paraphrasing with quotations. Paraphrasing in itself does not justify deletion: let's restore the deleted section so that the Wikipedia community as a whole can readily identify any mis-paraphrasing and replace it with more extensive direct quotations as appropriate.

The Wikipedian deleting the material has not identified which specific instances within the former section appear "embellished". Given the heavy use of direct quotations, the section as a whole seems unlikely to qualify as "embellishment", and thus should not suffer bulk redaction on the grounds of purported embellishment. Let's restore the deleted section so that the Wikipedia community as a whole can participate in identifying and correcting any sins of embellishment.

The omitted section contains many direct quotations, so the suggestion that the "section is ... quoted out of context" appears somewhat sweeping and ill-defined. We have no context in the comment on the deletion with which to assess proper and/or improper contexts for quotation in each individual case of quotation. Let's restore the deleted section so that the Wikipedia community as a whole can readily place each direct and indirect quotation in it under the microscope of evaluation and then selectively identify and correct any out-of-context misquotes by increasing the context of the text(s) quoted.

The representation of the expunged section as "unrepresentative" does not specify what the deleted section (or any part of it) does not represent fairly and neutrally. How it can come about that extensive word-for-word direct quotation from cited sources can misrepresent the various different stated views from those sources remains unexplained. If indeed the ex-section does misrepresent any of the various viewpoints which it references, it would seem appropriate to respond by identifying and expanding the texts concerned, and furnishing them with properly-referenced material presenting any different viewpoints, in the spirit of the balanced expression of the Wikipedic neutral point-of-view. In the circumstances, it does not seem justified to delete the material. Let's restore it to encourage further editing.

-- Pedant17 03:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What 60 Minutes actually broadcast

At 05:42 on 6 July 2007 a Wikipedian recast the clauses:

the Church of Scientology had some influence on the [[March 3]], 1991 ''[[60 Minutes]]'' television program<ref name="lewis" /> in which participants accused Erhard of sexual molestation of one of his daughters, rape of another, and physical abuse of his son and of his wife. Former Est Trainers also characterized Erhard (on camera) as a "cult leader who declared himself to be God at staff meetings."<Ref name="navarro" />

such that they subsequently read:

the Church of Scientology had some influence on the [[March 3]], 1991 ''[[60 Minutes]]'' television program<ref name="lewis" /> in which false charges of incest were broadcast.

The editor concerned tagged the edit with the edit-summary "60 Minutes broadcast - clarifying what was broadcast".

We thus have a case where several sourced allegations (albeit from a self-published pro-Erhard work) have disappeared from the article, leaving only a single -- unsourced -- allegation which the editor has characterized -- again without providing sourcing -- as "false". Such removal of sourced detail and its replacement with abbreviated opinion does not enhance Wikipedia's integrity as a reliable and comprehensive encyclopedia. Characterizing the loss of sourced material as "clarifying" does not help either. Let's restore the fuller version of Wikipedia's detailed account pending the appearance of some future reliable source(s) denying that 60 Minutes broadcast allegations of sexual molestation, of physical abuse, of cult-leadership and of claims of divinity -- all of which together may serve as some account for the alleged vehemence and detail of Scientology's alleged campaign against Erhard. We might start by adding a more contemporary account of the broadcast:

<blockquote> <p>Perhaps the most damaging blow of all against Erhard was a March 3 "60 Minutes" television report that detailed testimony from three of his daughters, several former EST leaders, and a housekeeper. Together, they accused Erhard of being a tyrant and a [[cult]] leader who declared himself to be God at staff meetings, administered a savage beating to his son, ordered his ex-wife nearly strangled to death during a two-day beating, and sexually molested one of his daughters and raped another. <ref> [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0140a.txt "News Watch"](a column from the [[Christian Research Institute]], Summer 1991, page 5) by [[William M. Alnor]], "[[Werner Erhard]] Flees in the Wake of Tax Liens and Child Abuse Allegations"</ref> </blockquote>

We could adduce too an Erhard-favorable account of the broadcast as a "60 Minutes expose that featured charges by family and former associates of sexual abuse of two of his daughters and physical abuse of his ex-wife and one of his sons" from "Friends of Werner Erhard" website.

(Note that the accuracy or otherwise of any of Rosenberg/Erhard's alleged misdeeds does not enter into the context of the discussion in the section of the Scientology and Werner Erhard article which concentrates on the alleged scope of alleged persecution of Rosenberg/Erhard by the Chuch of Scientology.)

-- Pedant17 03:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Relevance of est and of Landmark Education to this article

At 05:46 on 2007-07-06 a Wikipedian deleted two passages from this article, adding the edit-summary: "Published comparisons -Landmark Education is not related to Scientology nor to Werner Erhard".

The deleted text read as follows:

In [[1993]], two years after the emergence of Landmark Education, Rev. Dr. [[Richard L. Dowhower]] polled clergy to assess their opinions of [[cult]]s in a survey entitled [http://www.faithresource.com/SpiritualAbuse/ArticlesSpiritAbuse/DowhowerCultSurvey.htm "Clergy and Cults: A Survey"]. The 53 respondents came from the [[Washington, DC]] area and included 43 Lutheran clergy and seminarians, one Roman Catholic and one Jewish clergyman, and an Evangelical minister. The highest percentage (28%) of those questioned about "The cults I am most concerned about are", gave the answer of "Scientology, est/Forum, Lifespring".<ref> [http://www.faithresource.com/SpiritualAbuse/ArticlesSpiritAbuse/DowhowerCultSurvey.htm "Clergy and Cults: A Survey"], The Rev. [[Richard L. Dowhower]], D. D., ''Cult Observer'', Vol. 11, No. 3 ([[1994]]). </ref>

and:

Dr. Norbert Nedopil, head of the department of [[forensic psychiatry]] at the [[Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich|University of Munich]], in a 2003 study comparing Scientology and Landmark Education<ref name="Kuefner" /> commissioned by the [[States of Germany|German state]] of [[Bavaria]], excluded the possibility of classifying Landmark Education as a cult, or as cult-like in any way{{Fact|date=June 2007}}.<!-- Please quote the original text in order to support this statement. --> However, the study did state that both Scientology and Landmark Education had high risk factors for "controlling communications processes", and manipulation<ref name="Kuefner"> Heinrich Kuefner, Norbert Nedopil, Heinz Schoech, Robert Doerr, Stefanie Eiden, Raik Werner, "Expert opinion: Effects and risks of unconventional psycho- and social- techniques" [http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/germany/030217.htm], [[Munich, Germany]], [[February 17]], [[2003]]. </ref> The study stated its purpose thus: "The objective of the description and assessment of the Scientology and Landmark organizations was the investigation of the psychic, physical and social effects of the psycho- and social-techniques applied by those organizations respectively upon members and participants. The third objective also included the presentation of legal problems, conflicts or violations by the two organizations, along with pointers as to possible paths of resolution."<ref name="Kuefner" /> In [[2004]], [[Mona Vasquez]] appeared in the French television documentary ''[[Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus]]'' addressing what she saw as extensive and precise similarities between [[Scientology terminology]] and the [[jargon]] utilized by Landmark Education.<ref name="vasquez"> "[[Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus]]", [[France 3]], ''[[Pièces a Conviction]]'', [[May 24]], 2004, [[Mona Vasquez]]. </ref> A member of [[Scientology]] for seven years, Vasquez wrote the book ''Et Satan créa la secte: Mémoires d'une rescapée'' [''And Satan Created the Cult: Memoirs of an escapee''], ISBN 2-9519134-0-0. In [[2006]], [[Susan J. Palmer]] discussed Landmark Education at a [[CESNUR]] conference. She referred to a statement by journalist Martin Mireille which effectively portrayed Landmark Education as "a branch of Scientology". However, in Palmer's remarks, she rejects this assertion.<ref> [[Susan J. Palmer]], "France's About-Picard Law and Neo-Phare: The First Application of ''Abus de Faiblesse''", [[CESNUR]] 2006 International Conference, [[July 16]], [[2006]].<br> "Landmark Education, founded under the name 'est' by Werner Erhardt in the early 1970s, incorporates techniques from the Human Potential Movement, and is not, as journalist Martin Mireille wrote, 'a branch of Scientology'." </ref>

Each of the deleted passages makes reference to both Scientology and to est, making them just as relevant to the topic of "Scientology and Erhard" as other portions of the article. We can restore them to the article on that basis.

Where extracts refer to Landmark Education without referring to est, it behoves us as editors to address the (occasionally disputed) opinion as to whether one can make a connection between Erhard/Rosenberg (a co-subject of the current article) and Landmark Education. Despite protestations by Landmark Education itself, a body of citable evidence exists to make it clear that many people have regarded this link as established. Each of the deleted passages themselves assert the linkage: 'The highest percentage (28%) of those questioned about "The cults I am most concerned about are", gave the answer of "Scientology, est/Forum, Lifespring"' and : "Landmark Education, founded under the name 'est'... " Reputable commentators such as Steven Pressman (Outrageous Betrayal (St Martin's Press 1993)) have documented the processes by which Erhard's ideas and practices descended directly to Landmark Education; journalists such as Traci Hukill make the connection ('The est of friends: Werner Erhard's protégés and siblings carry the torch for a '90s incarnation of the '70s 'training' that some of us just didn't get" in Metro (July 9-15, 1998). http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html Retrieved 2007-10-15). The Encyclopedia of New Religions: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities. Edited by Christopher Partridge. Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2004. ISBN 0-7459-5219-4 states: "The Landmark Forum is a direct descendant, with substantial changes, of (est) (Erhard Seminar Training)... Landmark Education was founded in 1985 by a group of people who purchased the training methods and materials ('the technology') from Werner Erhard". Even Landmark Education's published summary its own corporate history acknowledges that Landmark Education inherited the intellectual property of Erhard/Rosenberg: "Landmark began with a dynamic group of leaders, a powerful operations team, and a body of intellectual properties originally developed by Werner Erhard ... Werner Erhard is widely regarded for the unique and lasting contribution that his ideas made in peoples' lives and organizations. While best known for creating the extremely popular est Training and later the original Forum, Mr. Erhard's work has spread over a large scope." (Company History, retrieved [2007-10-15]])

Wikipedia cannot simply ignore the documented connections between Landmark Education and est and Erhard/Rosenberg merely on the basis of unsourced assertion (however often repeated). And given Landmark Education's relevance to the subject-matter of this article, let's immediately restore the passages which discuss this apect of the article topic.

-- Pedant17 01:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source mischaracterizations

At 20:25 on 2007-10-23 a Wikipedian removed the following text:

Erhard later decided to have some of his staff at [[Mind Dynamics]] enroll in Scientology communications coursework as a way to train them in [[sales]]-techniques.<ref name="pressman" /><ref name="lewis" /> When Erhard started his own group, [[Erhard Seminars Training]], he incorporated portions of Scientology practices into his training, initially including the usage of the [[e-meter]].<ref name="pressman" /> Erhard had hired [[Scientologist]]s in order to develop these techniques as his own.<ref name="stark" /> L. Ron Hubbard and the [[Church of Scientology]] did not take kindly to this usage of their materials without their permission.

with the edit-summary "removed mischaracterizations - not what the source reference said".

The deleted passage contains four references to the work of three different authors; accordingly, the mention of a single "source reference" appears at best ambiguous. Let's restore the text and add specific page-numbers and specific context-related quotations to the references -- using separate footnotes rather than shared ones if necessary -- to encourage readers to check the assertions for themselves. Provisionally we could use a version such as:

Erhard later decided to have some of his staff at [[Mind Dynamics]] enroll in Scientology communications coursework as a way to train them in [[sales]]-techniques.<ref> {{cite book | last = Pressman | first = Steven | authorlink = Steven Pressman | title = [[Outrageous Betrayal]]: The dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile | year = 1993 | month = September | publisher = [[St. Martin's Press]] | location = New York | isbn = 0-312-09296-2 | pages = 25-31 | quote = }} </ref><ref> {{cite book | last = Lewis | first = James R | authorlink = James R. Lewis | title = Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy | year = 2001 | publisher = Prometheus Books | location = Amherst, New York | isbn = 978-1573928427 | pages = 382-387 | quote = }} </ref> When Erhard started his own group, [[Erhard Seminars Training]], he incorporated portions of Scientology practices into his training, initially including the usage of the [[e-meter]].<ref> {{cite book | last = Pressman | first = Steven | authorlink = Steven Pressman | title = [[Outrageous Betrayal]]: The dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile | year = 1993 | month = September | publisher = [[St. Martin's Press]] | location = New York | isbn = 0-312-09296-2 | pages = 25-31 | quote = }} </ref> Erhard had hired [[Scientologist]]s in order to develop these techniques as his own.<ref> {{cite book | last = Stark | first = Rodney | authorlink = Rodney Stark | coauthors = [[William Sims Bainbridge]] | title = The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation | year = 1986 | publisher = University of California Press | location = Berkeley | isbn = 0520057317 | pages = 182 | quote = }} </ref> L. Ron Hubbard and the [[Church of Scientology]] did not take kindly to this usage of their materials without their permission.{{fact}}

This would at least provide approximate page references for further research; while separating these references from others which may relate to different points.

-- Pedant17 02:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Werner Erhard Larry King Live.jpg

Image:Werner Erhard Larry King Live.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)