Talk:Outrageous Betrayal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Full cite

• For Wikipedia editors, if you need to cite this book somewhere, here is the full cite:
• Pressman, Steven (1993). Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 289. ISBN 0-312-09296-2. OCLC 27897209.
• And the code to use - Just change the page number to the specific page, or add {{rp|page number}} immediately next to it with, replacing "page number" with the specific page number or page range from the book:
• {{cite book | last = Pressman | first = Steven | authorlink = Steven Pressman | title = [[Outrageous Betrayal|Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile]] | publisher = [[St. Martin's Press]] | year = 1993 | location = [[New York]] | pages = 289 | isbn = 0-312-09296-2|id=[[OCLC]] [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/27897209 27897209]}}

Notice re Checkuser case

A recent checkuser case resulted in "confirm" on several users as sockpuppets of each other, that edited articles on closely related topics including Landmark Education, Werner Erhard, Landmark Education litigation, Scientology and Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training, and Werner Erhard and Associates, among others. As a result, several of these users and sockpuppets of each other have been blocked. The checkuser case page is here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this comment here? None of the users in that case ever edited here. Is it simply that the editor above (Cirt) has an agenda and is looking for an argument? It looks like it from the large amount of editing the they have done here. Kinda weird. Looks like a desire to create controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belladana (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The comment is here so that users can be on the lookout for additional sock puppets that might try to disrupt the page. Jehochman ^Talk 19:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: Belladana (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of Barnham (talk · contribs), see blocklog. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Addition to lede

[1] = I agree with this addition to the WP:LEAD by McGeddon (talk · contribs), good stuff. :) Cirt (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

On what grounds do you base this agreement? How does a mere statement of agreement further discussion with a view to improving the article? -- Pedant17 (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this was actually something done by McGeddon (talk · contribs) to acquiesce to suggestions by Pedant17 (talk · contribs). I am surprised at this harsh reaction from Pedant17 to an implementation of wording he had requested. Cirt (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What objection is there to this addition? Assuming it is true, as I know nothing at all about the subject of the article, it seems to be a short summary of what the book is about, which is what I would expect to find early on in the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal&diff=347596520&oldid=347064096 for a discussion of the content implications of the wording used. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sentences sometimes have meaning as well as form. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this cryptic comment is supposed to mean. If you feel that the sentence is inaccurate and that "both a profile of Erhard and a study of his business practices" mischaracterises the work, you should just correct it. --McGeddon (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dropping the word "business" from the lede would immediately provide a more balanced summary per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal&diff=347596520&oldid=347064096 -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

They were businesses. They were incorporated as business corporations. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Pedant17, what is your objection to using the word 'business' it looks to me as though at least some of the the organisations that he supported or was involved with were commercial enterprises. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to using the word "business" in contexts where it has a precise meaning and a relevant application. But a Wikipedia lede should introduce and summarize an article. When discussing a book about Newtonian physics, for example, Wikipedia might not highlight Newton's predilection for theological mysticism and arcane alchemy. When discussing a book about Rosenberg/Erhard and his activities, we don't want to distort the subject by blandly labeling a string of registered companies, shells, off-shore dummy corporations, tax-evasion fronts, volunteer-run activist organizations and "charitable" foundations as simply "business" in the lede. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed: Rosenberg/Erhard had associations with some corporations. But neither this article nor the subject of this article ( Pressman's book) focuses unduly on corporate commercial activity. Do any sources or reviews emphasize this aspect of the book? -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Is your point that the term business is too narrow or too legitimate? What term would you prefer, something like 'life's work' or 'commercial ventures'? I know nothing about the subject and am just trying to help? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Pedant17 is incorrect. The book itself focuses on the businesses. Erhard was not "associated" with them, that is a false assessment, Erhard started the multiple businesses. -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I question the claim that Pressman's book focuses on businesses. Look at the internal evidence. Pressman's table of contents looks like this:

Prologue
1 From Car Lots to California
2 The Curious Roots of est
3 Erhard and the Scientologists
4 A Door-to-Door Mind Salesman
5 A Lesson in Tax Shelters
6 Shadows from the Past
7 Enlightenment in Two Weekends
8 A Guru is Born
9 Trouble in Paradise
10 Erhard and the Private Eye
11 Nightmare on Franklin Street
12 Surrender to Source
13 Erhard Takes on the World
14 The Problems with Harry
15 Divorce, est-Style
16 est goes to Court
17 The Selling of the Forum
18 New Signs of Trouble
19 Time is Running Out
20 Erhard's Final Downfall
Epilogue
Acknowledgments
Index

Not a lot of obviously commerce-oriented stuff there, it seems. Let's look closer, though: I've made bullet-point-like summaries of the sections, thus:

Prologue - The suicide of Janis Vivo
1 From Car Lots to California - biographical background
2 The Curious Roots of est  - The Human Potential Movement and pop-psychology
3 Erhard and the Scientologists - Dianetics, Scientology, Peter Monk, Michael Maurer and  Werner Erhard
4 A Door-to-Door Mind Salesman - Mind Dynamics, Alexander Everett, Holiday Magic, William Penn Patrick, Stewart Emery, the announcement of est
5 A Lesson in Tax Shelters - Harry Margolis and the Margolis system
6 Shadows from the Past - The Rosenberg family and Erhard; est personnel
7 Enlightenment in Two Weekends -  The est training sessions
8 A Guru is Born - est in the context of Californian-style therapy; expansion in geography and staff; Erhard's image and appeal to celebrities.
9 Trouble in Paradise - est in the media; Margolis's legal problems
10 Erhard and the Private Eye - Jesse Kornbluth's research and published article; est's PR responses
11 Nightmare on Franklin Street - Erhard's trappings of power; control-methods for his staff and family
12 Surrender to Source - The image of Erhard's happy family; tightening control over staff
13 Erhard Takes on the World - The Hunger Project. Courses for children and prisoners and "corporate America". Motor-racing.
14 The Problems with Harry - Tax avoidance revisited per Harry Margolis
15 Divorce, est-Style - Family problems and divorce proceedings
16 est goes to Court - Kirsch and Glass article and other reported psychotic episodes in and out of the legal system. Jack Slee.
17 The Selling of the Forum - New courses, new names. Erhard's routines. Nathan Rosenberg's venture into politics.
18 New Signs of Trouble -- More staff dissatisfaction. The firing of Charlene Afremow.
19 Time is Running Out -- IRS issues. Afremow sues WE&A. Media criticism mounts. Scientology investigates Erhard.
20 Erhard's Final Downfall - Selling up physical and IP assets. The 60 Minutes broadcast on Erhard. Legal fallouts.
Epilogue - The Landmark Forum: example and discussion

That reveals a little more commercial emphasis scattered here and there: Chapter 5 on that central item in all businesses, tax-evasion; and a few references to staffing emerge (mostly, in fact, in the context of personal relationships with Erhard). Pressman has little on financials -- just the odd mention. I noted that est's own published statements on its growth concentrated not on dollars but on numbers of people -- perhaps more like a political party or a church than a corporation. And if it has any relevance, Pressman quotes Erhard on his stated attitude to the possibly business-related matter of money-making: "None of my associates or I have ever operated in the work with the notion of making money." (page 173, 1st edition, 1993). (Granted, another quote from Erhard may undercut that: "[...] if I was really in it for the money, I wouldn't tell you. And if I'm not in it for the money, then I wouldn't tell you either" (page 118).) Given the number of organizations (some of them overtly commercial) involved, Pressman has to mention them, particularly in connection with tax-evasion and bulk corporate name-changes. Thus: "In the wake of a new series of corporate documents drafted by Margolis, the company called Erhard Seminars Training Inc. passed out of existence and was replaced by a new entity known as est, An Educational Corporation. Next, Margolis transferred 'ownership' of the est body of knowledge from a Panamanian company to a new entity that listed its headquarters in the Netherlands. The new company was called Wellbehagen (Dutch for 'well-being,' a popular est phrase). [...] Margolis had placed the entire new operation under the supposed control of charitable organizations. The Werner Erhard Charitable Settlement, a magnanimous-sounding entity set up in the British Isle of Jersey, technically owned est, An Educational Corporation. To complete the bewildering maze of companies, Margolis set up a Swiss organization named the Werner Erhard Foundation for est, placing the Dutch company in the hands of the Swiss 'charity'" (page 109). But overall, I maintain that Pressman does not focus "unduly" (as I put it previously) on the "business" side of the est/Erhard story. And I repeat my question: Do any sources or reviews emphasize this aspect of the book? -- I also question the accuracy of the claim that "Erhard started the multiple businesses". Pressman (whose work, after all, forms the subject of our article) explains some of the situations in detail. For example, Margolis set up the original est so that Erhard served it merely as a paid employee, without any (overt) ownership or managerial control:

For Erhard and est, the convoluted financial journey began in October 1971 when Margolis shuffled some legal documents that instantly turned one of his dummy corporations, the Saratoga Restaurant Equipment Company, into Erhard Seminars Training, Inc. [...] The next step in the Margolis system was for Werner Erhard to 'sell' his knowledge about human consciousness to yet another Margolis-created corporation called Presentacions Musicales, conveniently headquartered in Panama, where it operated beyond the reach of American tax authorities. [...] Margolis drafted a series of documents that made Erhard appear as simply an employee (at an initial annual salary of $30,000) of the same Panamanian company that had just bough[t] his lucrative body of knowledge. [...] Erhard [...] simply worked for a company called Erhard Seminars Training. And he had the documents to prove that he neither owned nor controlled the new company. (pages 48-49)

Repeatedly, Pressman emphasizes that Harry Margolis (rather than Werner Erhard) set up many of the "est" outfits: "Funneled through a circular series of Margolis's dummy corporations and offshore bank accounts, the money ultimately destined for Erhard found its way into a bank account in Panama [...] From there the money was transferred electronically to a private bank chartered in the British Virgin islands - and controlled by Harry Margolis" (pages 177-178). And of course, we know that Erhard did not start the post-1990 corporations that Pressman also summarizes: "On January 31, 1991, Werner Erhard signed a twenty-one-page sales contract that officially turned over the assets of Werner Erhard & Associates to the new owners, who called their company Transnational Education Corporation. Shortly after, the name changed again, this time to Landmark Education Corporation" (page 254). -- Granted that Erhard had links (however tenuous and indirect) with these organizations, how do we want to summarize those links? I've suggested "associations" as a vague but comprehensive yet accurate term. Does anyone have a better suggestion? -- Pedant17 (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "business" tends to have ambiguities at the best of times. But the activities of Erhard, est, et al., as documented by Pressman in Outrageous Betrayal, covered a lot more than mere legitimate commercial activity. If we talk about "activities" (tout court) in the lead, rather than "business activities", that would summarize matters neutrally and leave the gory details for the main body of the article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As the discussion now seems to have moved from style to article content, about which I know nothing, I will now bow out, unless both sides think I could be of use as an informal mediator. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We have no sides here, but your moderating influence has worked wonders - long may it continue. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Let us draw influence from secondary sources. Both reviews in Publishers Weekly and Library Journal refer to Erhard's controversial business dealings. The word "business" is wholly appropriate in the lede. -- Cirt (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The lede should reflect and summarize the article body (per WP:LEDE). The article body includes no reference to "business" in the brief extracts from Publishers Weekly or Library Journal. One might conclude that to say that '[t]he word "business" is wholly appropriate in the lede' stretches things a little. Let's see the detail worked into the article (with precise quotations available) before we debate the appropriateness of this distortion of the emphasis of the lede. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The article body uses the word "company" many times, I don't see how "business practices" isn't an accurate summary of this. --McGeddon (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, and the article body uses the word "the" many times; accordingly we should summarize by including the word "definitely" in the lede. -- Once we've counted words, we need to determine matters of accuracy, meaning, importance and balance. I put the question again, for the third time of asking: do any sources or reviews emphasize the "business" aspect of the book? If so,let's quote them in the article, then evaluate the importance of their content for mention in the lede. If not, we have minimal grounds for over-emphasizing "business" at all.-- Pedant17 (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Update

Related to prior activity by Pedant17 (talk · contribs) at this page. Please see User:Pedant17/Community sanction. -- Cirt (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)