Talk:Werner Erhard

Hagiography

The opening sentence of this article reads: "Werner Hans Erhard (...) is a critical thinker and author of transformational models and applications for individuals, groups, and organizations." Erhard is whatever you like, a visionary, a smart eclectic, a selfmade man, a skilfull user of mass-psychological techniques, a man with an entrepreneurial spirit, a charming personality, a dexterous salesman, or what have you, but he is definitely not a 'critical thinker', and neither is he an 'author of models and applications' (whatever that may mean). The source is extremely poor, a short newspaper interview with Leonard Susskind, written by a journalist who obviously has heard the name 'Werner Erhard' for the first time, and who tries in vain to evoke in a few words Erhard's biography to inform the ignorant reader (between brackets): "(Erhard is a critical thinker who made his fortune with the New Age group, est, and is something of a “physics groupie”, presiding over meetings of some of the world’s greatest physicists.)" Perhaps we should rewrite the first sentence so that Erhard will triumphantly emerge as a 'physics groupie'? His role as the founder of est should be mentioned in the opening sentence, of course. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC) (corrections 22:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC))

I have cut back the hagiographic content from the lead. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Still reads like a vanity piece.Cathar66 (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As regards the lead, Erhard is quite often referred to as a critical thinker and has been acknowledged and referred to as such by some highly regarded academic publications - one of them being the Harvard Business Press, which states "We are indebted to numerous philosophers, scholars, and thinkers who have inquired into the nature of being, especially Werner Erhard." And anyway, the London Telegraph is a quite reputable publication and there is no reason for you to cast aspersions on their editorial integrity and question the journalist's intelligence and ability to do research. A reference from a well regarded paper is perfectly fine source.

In regard to the string of deletions of good well referenced material from this article today - A lot of work has been done over the past several years to bring this article to an agreed on neutral quality that accurately represents Erhard and his work. Please do not degrade the neutrality and introduce unsourced and opinionated material while removing factual information backed up by good sourcing. ThanksMLKLewis (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that the London Telegraph quote, which I ridiculed, and rightly so, suffices to establish that Erhard is first and foremost - we talk about the first statement of the opening sentence - a critical thinker? See also the thread below. I have reverted your edit. The piling up of footnotes, as the current article does, is a serious obstacle to an encyclopedic article of some merit. The selection of sources is highly biased, as is the section 'Books by others'. The article text is equally one-sided (I agree with Cathar66 who considers it a "vanity piece"). Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

With respect to the quote from the Harvard Business Review: it is a footnote dealing with unpublished lectures of Erhard, and there are scholarly surveys of Erhard's life and work that are much more notable, extensive and elaborate. None of those surveys call him a writer or scholar of some significance. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do indeed think that the Harvard Business Press is a quite reputable publisher and I don't see how it being in footnoted material detracts in any way from it being a reliable source. I also think that the London Telegraph chose their words with intention, as good journalists do. Erhard's work has dealt with ontology and what it is to be a human being in the world - and it is completely warranted to call him (as the reputable journalist from the London Telegraph journalist did) a critical thinker. It captures the essence of Erhard's work and effectively communicates his life's body of work which is exactly what a good encyclopedic article should do. MLKLewis (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I follow the rationale of your point MLKLewis perhaps you could elaborate on your reasoning? Cathar66 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My point is that Erhard's contribution to the world is fundamentally within the realm of thinking critically about what it is to be a human being and how human beings do what they do and act the way they act and be who they are in their lives - Erhard's work has also been about teaching people and organizations how to alter these aspects of being human beings relating to each other so that they can have choice in how they live their lives and behave in our societal groups and not be run by old patterns of behavior and action. There are numerous sources that say or illustrate that Erhard's work is about critically thinking about being human beings - Here is one: "according to critical thinker and author Werner Erhard, most of our notions about the world come from a set of assumptions which we take for granted, and which, for the most part, we don't examine or question. We bring these assumptions to the table with us to separate ourselves from them enough to be able to talk about them. We do not think these assumptions, we think from them." Paul Veliyathil in T.H.R.I.V.E MLKLewis (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@MLKLewis, Do you really think that this selfpublished source establishes Erhard's status as a critical thinker? Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The lede is totally on its knees in praise of the subject of the article. It's embarrassing to come here looking for information and to get propaganda. 842U (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

POV-template

As I have argued before, this article is POV to its core. I sum up what in my view is wrong with the article as an addition to what I have said before:

• The first statement of the intro is misleading and not backed by reliable sources.
• The article provides the image Erhard would like to present of himself, but it is not the image you get when studying the subject.
• Nearly all the controversial subjects: tax difficulties, elements of the biography that are considered by the subject to be unfavourable (lack of formal education, bigamy, financial greed, relationship with Landmark Education, juridical agressiveness, the marketing-side of the started charities and the and tax-evasion-side of the chosen company/financial structure, his escapism - name changes, going abroad when problems became too great, his opportunism), the NRM-side of est (and successors), are either left out or treated in a non-neutral way.
• Instead of telling the truth: nobody knew for some years where he was, the article tells us: "After retiring from Werner Erhard & Associates, Erhard continued to make public appearances."
• The criticism section looks like an apology of Erhard.
• The Film and television section only mentions positive Erhard news.
• The only publication in the Publication section that is critical of Erhard is Pressman.

The Landmarkians do everything to invite their opponents to start edit warring (not answering the criticisms, but restoring POV versions), so I try to engage more uninvolved editors to get this article on a less hagiographic and more encyclopedic level. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is indeed quire reprehensible in its violation of Wikipedia rules, especially but not exclusively WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:QUESTIONED, WP:BIASED, WP:BLPCOI, etc. A major overhaul is due. As it now stands, it's an example of how Wikipedia articles should not be. -The Gnome (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite Theobald Tiger's claim that this article is not neutral, the edits that they did to the article were removals of material that was backed by solid references that pertained to Erhard's current or more recent work and the removal of sourced material is not a proper way to bring about a good wikipedia article. In terms of POV, reading the talk page above will reveal Theobald Tiger's negative POV against Erhard. If there are specific points that editors want to address about the article then we should do so on this talk page one point at a time in calm and neutral manner.--MLKLewis (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As you may be aware there is a huge difference between technically following the policies' to the letter, and actually adhering to their spirit. This entirely unacceptable "article" is clearly written by Erhard's disciples. It is completely indefensible in its current form. Judging by your edit history, you are clearly not neutral on this topic, and you should recuse yourself from editing the article, and from participating in any discussion on this talk page. --89.0.227.245 (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Should be a reference to Semi Tough

The BEAT training and Freidrich Bismark. The semi tough entry references est. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.179.146 (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Marc Galanter reference

In the critics and disputes section we currently use a reference to Marc Galanter that reads, "Psychiatrist Marc Galanter described Erhard as "a man with no formal experience in mental health, self help, or religious revivalism, but a background in retail sales." However, in reading Galanter's book, I found that Galanter also immediately goes on to say that a study done with a large sample of people who had completed the est training revealed that “the large majority felt the experience had been positive (88%), and considered themselves better off for having taken the training (80%)."

It seems unbalanced and not representative of the actual source if we don't use both sides of the point that Galanter makes. His point is that despite Erhard's background being in retail and therefore not typical, Erhard still had a positive impact on people who attended his training program. However, as Galanter is used now, the article gives an incomplete picture of what Galanter is saying.

Interestingly the Galanter reference is being used in a section concerning disputes and by their very nature disputes have two sides, i.e. contrasting points of view. It is completely fitting to include alternate sides to those disputes and the point being made by Galanter in this reference is a perfect example of this. I propose that we add to what is currently there now and expand the sentence to read, "Psychiatrist Marc Galanter described Erhard as "a man with no formal experience in mental health, self help, or religious revivalism, but a background in retail sales" but he goes on to quote a study done with a large sample of people who had completed the est training which revealed that “the large majority felt the experience had been positive (88%), and considered themselves better off for having taken the training (80%)." --MLKLewis (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Galanter issue is one that may merit more comment, but the "Critics and Disputes" section has already been watered down far too much. The disputes referenced are the media and legal issues; the critics section needs to be greatly expanded to reflect accurately the extensive criticism that has been leveled at WE and his work through the years. The article as it exists is wildly unbalanced in favor of creating a positive and not neutral image of WE. It might be useful to remove the Galanter reference after futher discussion, but the "but he goes on to say" acts to negate a valid observation that the first part of the quotation identifies. The point of this section is to explore criticism of WE's work, not to present it and then negate it - unless we want to go through the entire article, point by point and section by section, and present a refutation from a critic of every positive assertion currently here.Sensei48 (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This exchange seems to illustrate the impossibility of ever satisfying everyone on a topic such as this. Whatever the content of the article there will always be editors who think it is painting too rosy a picture, and others who find it excessively critical. While it is true that there has been over the years a good deal of critical comment regarding Erhard and his works, this is utterly minuscule in comparison with the enormous numbers of people who have completed the programs delivered by him and their derivatives, and have been delighted with the results. Furthermore, the majority of critical comment came from people who have no direct experience of either Erhard or his works and who base their opinions on gossip, rumour, prejudice, or downright deliberate malice. Much of that content is factually inaccurate, and a good deal is no more than smear and innuendo. The quote above is a case in point; while all four component assertions are factually correct - so what? He never claimed to have "...formal experience in mental health," nor has it ever been suggested that his programs were intended to address mental health issues."Religious revivalism" is even less relevant; "...a background in retail sales" is an unnecessarily demeaning description of someone who rose to senior executive positions in major corporations. As for "self-help", he is widely described as having virtually invented the industry, which barely existed prior to the foundation of the est training. DaveApter (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Critical Thinker

If only Wikipedia could have been known to George Orwell. LOL

99.251.239.140 (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)