Talk:Erhard Seminars Training

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Added POV tag. Sales brochure tone.[edit]

Added POV tag. This article reeks of "everything positive and nothing negative" sales brochure tone. 108.20.176.139 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

One example of many:
"...Emmy-winning actress Valerie Harper reported, 'Est was a wonderfully empowering experience for me...'." Importance of participants is hyped up, lending importance and/or legitimacy on the enterprise. The whole "Notable Participants" section serves as a kind of testimonial advertising. 108.20.176.139 (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I removed Emmy award winning actress as I agree that it is not relevant to article.--MLKLewis (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

MARKETING as bad as it comes. Please add the POV tag again[edit]

This article reads like typical PR. It offer no significant outside perspective or criticism.

I have not read as obvious marketing on Wikipedia for ages. It is a disgrace for our project. 213.152.162.154 (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Death[edit]

I don't believe that the death of one participant, found by a court not to have been caused by est, warrants mention, much less mention in the timeline. Avocats (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree with you. I have removed the item from the time line.--MLKLewis (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Erhard Seminars Training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Notable Participants[edit]

Proper citations that actually mention the noted living persons, need to be added or corrected.SteveJEsposito (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Human potential movement and large group awareness training[edit]

@MLKLewis: recently removed large-group awareness training from the lead without leaving a summary. LGAT isn't mentioned in the body of the article, so it doesn't clearly belong in the lead, but its removal underscores that the lead is vague enough to be kind of useless. EST and The Forum in popular culture mentions both LGAT and the larger Human Potential Movement, supported by solid offline sources:

  • Fisher, Jeffrey D.; Cohen Silver, Roxane; Chinsky, Jack M.; Goff, Barry; Klar, Yechiel (1990). Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training. New York: Springer-Verlag. p. 142. ISBN 0-387-97320-6. 
  • Denison, Charles Wayne (June 1995). "The children of EST: A study of the experience and perceived effects of a large group awareness training". Dissertation Abstracts International. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International. 55 (12–B): 5564. 
  • McGurk, William S. (June 1977). "Was Ist est?". Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books. 22 (6): pp. 459–460. 

Since I don't have access to those sources, I'm not willing to use them, but is there a general agreement that est is part of LGAT and the Human Potential movement? A quick search shows that sources seem to support this. Adding one or both of these to the lead would go a long way towards making it clearer, or at least give it a bit of context. The quote in the lead also needs clear attribution, since it's followed by two different refs. Is this Erhardt's description? If not, who's saying this? Grayfell (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible Elucidation?[edit]

Many participants experienced powerful results through their participation in the est training, including dramatic transformations in their relationships with families, their work and personal vision as well as recognizing who they were in the core of their beings. says the article

participants experienced powerful results Yes. And what were those results? including dramatic transformations in their relationships with families Um. Yes. But what were the results? And the transformation ones, they were transformations from what to what?

But wait. There's more. as well as recognizing who they were in the core of their beings. Not merely recognizing who they were, but doing so at the core of their beings.

Somehow I don't think this qualifies as an encyclopedia entry. Yet. Could we at minimum have some indication of what the concept "recognizing who they were" is all abaht? This core of their beings thingie looks portentous enough to be worth a little elucidation, too.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

To put it more succinctly, this article needs to describe precisely what happened at the seminars. What was the training method? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.117.83 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The article's been written by people who consider Erhardt, and his seminars, worshipful. Life changing, glorious, etc. Full stop. The examples they cite are all Hollywood celebrities, as is par for the course for cultish programs such as Scientology. It has no value as an encyclopedic article. It's a push-piece. I put this article high on my list of articles that need a thorough purging by WP:NPOV and WP:COI wonks. Sadly, that is not me. Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I came here because of the negative comments made about the influence of Est on the development of The Wiz. All I found was the psychobabble those comments complained about. Tysto (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Erhard Seminars Training. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Dubious edits?[edit]

Is this edit justified: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erhard_Seminars_Training&diff=prev&oldid=729181825 ?

It seems to me to fail on grounds of relevance, due weight and neutrality. While it is undoubtedly tragic that this individual died, the only reason for including it in the article is to convey the impression that est was in some degree responsible. Not only did a court rule that this was not the case, but it is clearly counter to common sense, as it is a statistically insignificant proportion of the several hundred thousands of individuals who participated and did not die during the training. DaveApter (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This one is even less defensible: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erhard_Seminars_Training&diff=729180319&oldid=727481557

The source is a flippant article in a lowbrow magazine. The quote is unencyclopedic in tone and factually inaccurate. Erhard was not 'down on his luck'; he was a senior executive at Grolier. There is no evidence that the cigarette he was smoking was 'his last Lucky Strike'. DaveApter (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I was also somewhat uncomfortable with those sections in the article, but right now I don't have time to really dig into it. --Slashme (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)