Jump to content

Talk:Outrageous Betrayal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articleOutrageous Betrayal has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 20, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 22, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Lawsuit section

[edit]

I'm removing this, and also the summary relating to it in the lead, as it is not supported by references which meet the reliable sources criteria, resting as it does on pages from the partisan Rick Ross website and a self-published book by Ross's attorneys. If anyone can find alternative acceptable sources, please feel free to re-instate with the appropriate references. DaveApter (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations by his daughters were withdrawn after it was revealed that the Los Angles times promised $2M USD and a book deal,
as well as the IRS... et cetera. JBTurner44 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AS cited in the article about WE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Erhard JBTurner44 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which now actually speaks about the whole process: Just HOW did an article about a book, that Wikipedia admins gang edited, promoted, about a hack job, that was filled with lies, shown to be lies.
"George Galloway stormed up to Capitol Hill yesterday morning for the confrontation of his career, firing scatter-shot insults at the senators who had accused him of profiting illegally from Iraqi oil sales.
They were "neo-cons" and "Zionists" and a "pro-war lynch mob", he raged, who belonged to a "lickspittle Republican committee" that was engaged in creating "the mother of all smokescreens".
Looks like someone is using Norm Coleman's playbook. JBTurner44 (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, 158.51.81.86 made a new account. Welcome! Polygnotus (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Wakefield

[edit]

In the reception section it says:

"Novelist and journalist [[Dan Wakefield]], in his review of the book in ''[[Tricycle: the Buddhist Review]]'', criticized Pressman for failing to speak with people who had positive things to say about est. Pressman described the est training as "a mish-mash of self-help theories, common-sense psychology, and dime-store ideas of motivation" while also praising the program for helping him personally in dealing with alcoholism. Wakefield also cites an opinion survey which suggests that most est participants had positive experiences with it.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wakefield |first1=Dan |author-link1=Dan Wakefield |title=Reviews - Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile |url=http://www.tricycle.com/reviews/outrageous-betrayal |access-date=December 2, 2019 |work=Tricycle: the Buddhist Review |date=Spring 1994 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120911075053/http://www.tricycle.com/reviews/outrageous-betrayal |archive-date=September 11, 2012}}</ref>"

But that is not a neutral reviewer and journalist, he is the guy who writes Werner Erhard's website (see near the top of http://www.wernererhard.com/boundary.html). So to pretend he is a neutral reviewer is misleading. Polygnotus (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is the other way around. Erhard's website is using Wakefield's work, not the other way around. He is dead by the way. vs Pressman who just out right lied, when most of his facts were repudiated.
"It was disclosed by the Los Angeles Times in December 1991 that Scientology orchestrated an attack on Werner Erhard by using private investigators to generate and feed false information to the media, including to 60 Minutes.
I would be interested in how much Pressman was paid.
http://www.wernererhard.com/60minutes.html
We are talking about the Citation, and Dan Wakefeild?
https://danwakefield.com/about-dan/ JBTurner44 (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]