Talk:Werner Erhard (book)/Archive 1

Note

Will research into incorporating some of the sources listed in Further reading into the article. Cirt (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice re Checkuser case

A 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) 15:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info by MLKLewis

MLKLewis (talk · contribs) has removed sourced info from this article, which was previously up until now a stable WP:GA-rated quality article. I would request that we go through the complaints of MLKLewis, one-at-a-time, and listen to why MLKLewis wishes to remove sourced info from this GA article. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

MLKLewis has removed sourced material, again, with no talk page explanation. I'd again respectfully request that we discuss here on the talk page. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs of removal of sourced info [1] [2] [3] — Cirt (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The diffs are above. I've posted the page to WP:RFPP. I'm going to take a step back from this page and let others discuss. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral and balanced material about reviews of the book

I changed the second paragraph of the lead to more neutrally represent reviews of this book. Sensei48 reverted this to the previous version, giving the reason in the edit summary: "Not neutral. Pls stop removing soucred material from a GA." (The diff can be seen here:[4]) I did not remove sourced material, every source that was in the lead remains either in my rewritten version or in the "Critical reception" section of the article. The older (and now current) version is quite negatively slanted. I added the Choice: Current reviews for Academic Libraries review to the lead section - it was buried in the Critical reception section and should be present in the lead as it is an academic and highly reputable source.

I am including the two versions here to compare:

• Version 1: The book was well-received by graduates of the est training and became a bestseller. Overall it did not receive a positive reception in secondary sources, and it is seen as a hagiography.[1][2] A review in The Christian Century comments "[Bartley] should have known better than to get sucked into writing this promo on Erhard".[3] Library Journal's review points out the "slick tone and more than a trace of hero worship",[4] and a review in the Chicago Tribune describes it as "an act of devotion".[5]

• Version 2: Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries recommended that the book be placed in libraries focused on the social sciences: "Highly recommended to general libraries and college libraries serving social sciences graduates and undergraduates."[1] The book was well-received by graduates of the est training and became a bestseller.[2] It placed 8th on a list of non-fiction best sellers by TIME on November 20, 1978.[3] However, other significant media outlets such as The Library Journal[4], the Los Angeles Times[5], The Christian Century[6], and the Chicago Tribune[7] have been sharply critical of the book, pointing to its lack of objectivity and its hagiographic style.--MLKLewis (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And in my note on your Talk page, I suggested a compromise. You say that the original version - one that I again emphasize was approved as part of the WP:GA process - as "quite negatively slanted." Are you suggesting that that "slant" escaped the attention of the GE reviewers? That is a genuine, non-confrontational question - I truly do not understand. Nor do I understand how you would think that your version #2 is in any manner not slanted, though in a pro-Erhard direction. Why would you remove the direct quotations from The Library Journal and The Christian Century, both major publications in their fields, but include direct quotation from the fairly obscure Current Reviews For Academic Libraries publication?

When I suggested a collaborative addition to the lede, I did so with this in mind. Your initial extensive edits to public perception listed only positive evaluations of Erhard. I appended the modestly-phrased and appropriately-sourced final paragraph of the section to create just the sort of balance that the edits you have made across a number of Erhard-related articles have not demonstrated.

I am suggesting, in short, that if you wish to incorporate something from Current Reviews that you should do so - but within the framework of this current WP:GA article and not by removing the quotations from The Library Journal and The Christian Century, both of which are well over 100 years old and are arguably the most important publications in their respective fields.Sensei48 (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't presume to know about the mindset of the GA reviewers, but I do think that this article reads with a negative slant toward Erhard and Bartley, and GA status should not preclude it from being improved.

I do think that the quote from Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, (a publication by the Association of College and Research Libraries) fully satisfies WP:SOURCES and is more neutral than the quote from the The Christian Century. The Choice quote, "Highly recommended to general libraries and college libraries serving social sciences graduates and undergraduates" simply states that the book is of academic merit in the field of the social sciences. The Christian Century quote, "[Bartley] should have known better than to get sucked into writing this promo on Erhard" is very opinionated in tone, and really says nothing about the book, but more about the reviewer's opinion of Erhard. This quote is currently in the body of the article on Critical reception, so I am only proposing at this point to remove it from the lead. The other problem I have with the lead is the statement, "Overall it did not receive a positive reception in secondary sources and it is seen as a hagiography." This statement is an interpretation, bordering on original research.

So in keeping with Sensei48's request and points I made above, I propose that the lead read: Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries recommended that the book be placed in libraries focused on the social sciences, stating it was "highly recommended to general libraries and college libraries serving social sciences graduates and undergraduates."[1] The book was well-received by graduates of the est training and became a bestseller.[2] It placed 8th on a list of non-fiction best sellers by TIME on November 20, 1978.[3] However, other significant media outlets such as Library Journal[4],the Los Angeles Times[5], The Christian Century[6], and the Chicago Tribune[7] have been sharply critical of the book, pointing to its lack of objectivity and its hagiographic style. Library Journal's review points out the "slick tone and more than a trace of hero worship",[4] and a review in the Chicago Tribune describes it as "an act of devotion".[5]--MLKLewis (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit, and even the inclusion of the quotation in the current lede, inflates the importance of Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries beyond reason for the precise reason that it is almost the sole positive review that the book received. THAT indicates a lack of proportion. The quotation represents that reviewer's very opinionated observation as to the worth of the book, the difference being that The Christian Century is a high-profile, established publication with significant influence in its field, as its Wikipedia article indicates.

Further - The New York Review of Books, Kirkus Reviews, Booklist, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and Library Journal (which according to its Wiki article "has the highest circulation of any librarianship journal, according to Ulrich's — approximately 100,000") are quoted in the article with strongly negative reactions to the book. Those are each among the most influential and respected publications in the country overall in terms of book reviews.

And further - the quotation from Current Reviews for Academic Libraries also appears in the body of the article. Why does it belong in the lede and not the one from The Christian Century? And since the preponderance of quoted reviews from the above-cited list of major publications are negative, incorporating the Current Reviews quotation in actuality distorts the reality of critical reaction to the book. Something like this is more reflective of the content of the article:

Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries recommended that the book be placed in libraries focused on the social sciences, stating it was "highly recommended to general libraries and college libraries serving social sciences graduates and undergraduates."[1] The book was well-received by graduates of the est training and became a bestseller.[2] It placed 8th on a list of non-fiction best sellers by TIME on November 20, 1978.[3] However, many other significant media outlets such as Library Journal[4],the Los Angeles Times[5], The Christian Century[6], and the Chicago Tribune[7] have been sharply critical of the book, pointing to its lack of objectivity and its hagiographic style. The New York Review of Books review asserts that "The writing is...appalling: formularized zest, officious enthusiasm that is thoroughly uncontagious.", Library Journal's review points out the "slick tone and more than a trace of hero worship",[4] and a review in the Chicago Tribune describes it as "an act of devotion".[5]

This lede would more accurately reflect the content of the article and keep the Current Reviews quotation in its proper perspective as practically alone in its endorsement of the book. Sensei48 (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look for some more sources and reviews. However, I have to point out that Lieberson is badly misquoted. The Lieberson review is partially online here – as you can see, the phrase "The writing is, moreover, appalling: formularized zest, officious enthusiasm that is thoroughly uncontagious." that is quoted in the article does not refer to this book at all, but is a general comment on self-help books. To the extent that Lieberson, in the visible part of the review, comments on the writing in this book at all, he says, "It is also attractively written, never shrill or unduly proselytizing, careful to avoid the hysteria and tribalism that usually characterize the early years of movements like est." This should be corrected, and the GA reviewer slipped up badly here if this was in the article at the time.

Another source states, "The book was well received by Werner, est graduates, and critics." (Florence Whiteman Kaslow; Marvin B. Sussman (1 January 1982). Cults and the family. Psychology Press. p. 189. ISBN 9780917724558. Retrieved 14 July 2011.) The author, Kris Jeter, does not seem to be associated with Erhard [5]; a review of this book, on the website of the International Cultic Studies Association, described Jeter's stance towards cults as "neutral". --JN466 14:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

[6] --JN466 14:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree about the misrepresentation of the quotation from Lieberson - though "At first, then, it seems fortunate that a professional philosopher, William Warren Bartley, III, should have chosen to address himself in his latest book to the life and work of Werner Erhard...he would seem an ideally judicious interpreter. If this expectation is disappointed, the book is nevertheless instructive..." suggests strongly that the overall review is critical of the book (if not as harsh as the misquotation), something that could be ascertained with the purchase of a trial subscription.

The Kaslow/Sussman book as quoted and linked refers to Erhard as "Werner" throughout - rather like alluding to JFK as "John." That just isn't done in serious scholarly books and suggests either personal familiarity or overtly positive bias.

Jeter may or may not be WP:RS - that can and should be vetted - but the question of est as a cult is appropriate more to an article on the organization itself or Erhard. The question in this section of the article is not whether est is a cult or not; it is whether or not the critical reception of the book was in any significant way positive. As noted, the publications cited in the article with harsh evaluations of the books are major newspapers and magazines. "More sources and reviews" should have equivalent weight to appear in the lede. Sensei48 (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The author gives a plausible-enough explanation of why she chose to use the first name, and I wouldn't say that this in itself constitutes a problem. The book is by a highly reputable academic publisher, and the review of it on the website of the International Cultic Studies Association identifies several contributors to it whom they characterise as anti-cult, pro-cult, or neutral. Jeter is placed by them in the last of these three categories. (It should be noted here that the ICSA's own bias is, if anything, anti-cult.)

I happily agree that the Lieberson review appears to be mixed, more leaning towards negative ("disappointed ... nevertheless instructive"). He also does seem to have said that Bartley appeared to have "fallen" for Erhard, and I've included that info in the edit diffed above. It's sourced to the exchange of Letters to the Editor between Bartley and Lieberson, which I've added as an additional citation, as right now I can't see all of the original review. But Bartley complains there that Lieberson had said he had "fallen" for Erhard. I think that will do as a stop-gap until one of us can get access to the complete review. --JN466 15:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's some research on Jeter: [7] "Kris Jeter is an Associate with Beacon Associates Ltd., a research, training, editing and program evaluation firm. She has held teaching positions at Murray State University, North Carolina AT&T University, and Howard University, and visiting professorships at Delaware State College and the University of Delaware." Publications in Google Scholar. Seems RS; whether we should quote her here is another matter. --JN466 15:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

So far, so good - and I like the way you integrated an accurate summary of Lieberson into the reception section. Jeter looks ok to me as well. Perhaps you could take a whack at re-doing the lede in a way that would meet the concerns of MLKLewis above but would not create a misperception about its critical reception. I still think that Current Reviews is getting more weight than it merits - given the significance of the other publications listed - and referring to a subject by first name is just not done in serious academic writing (in addition to a number of grammatical mistakes in the passages online) - but I can live with those as long as my concerns above are also taken into consideration. Sensei48 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A review not mentioned so far in the article is The Psychology Today (in Further Reading), written by Morris B. Parloff, chief of psychotherapy and Behavioral Intervention Clinical Research Branch, National Institute of Mental Health. He writes, "William Warren Bartley III has written this biography of Werner carefully, lovingly, and well. Bartley, who is an historian, philosopher, educator, and biographer of Ludwig Wittgenstein, has here set himself three tasks: (1) to tell of Werner's education and transformation and "completion" of his relationship with his family, (2) to describe the various "disciplines" that Werner encountered in his search prior to creating est, and (3) to provide a "literary statement of the fundamental presuppositions, theoretical and practical, behind Werner's own perspectives, as it has been embodied in oral form, in the est training and educational program."--MLKLewis (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

OK - Psychology Today is certainly a WP:RS, and a selection from this quotation could be added to the reception section - but not to the lede, which is already awkwardly redundant and does not acknowledge the preponderance of MSM poor reviews.. I'd suggest we wait a bit and see if Jayen will undertake to come up with a workable compromise. Sensei48 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'm fine with that, and am also willing to go with your proposed rewrite (after removing the Lieberson). I also found this from Contemporary Authors Online: Gale 2001, Literature Resource Center. "The philosophy professor 'tells a rather simple, straightforward story that pretty much lets you draw your own conclusions [about Erhard] or keep the ones you have already reached,' according to Stephen Goldstein in a Washington Post review.... Bartley makes it 'obvious from the start that he cares about his subject and his own est experience. But consider reading Bartley on Erhard and est, even if you think that the whole thing is nothing but chicanery and that all the graduates...have been duped. You might come away thinking what you think now--and you might not." --MLKLewis (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the additional reviews. The best thing to do is to locate other reviews, agree which ones we should add to the body of the article, and then revisit the lead. --JN466 20:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

MLKLewis, would you have citation data (and links, if available) for Psychology Today and the Gale publication? They would make useful additions. --JN466 19:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes - Psychology Today - "How Werner Got It", by Morris B. Parloff, Psychology Today, November 1978. p. 136. and the Gale: "William Warren Bartley, III," Contemporary Authors Online. Detroit: Gale 2001. Literature Resource Center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLKLewis (talk • --MLKLewis (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)contribs) 01:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another review I have located: "The two things Bartley's book does cover are Erhard's life (his "soap opera") and the philosophical disciplines which antedate est. Author Bartley is both an est graduate, which mitigates against a hostile view, and a respected philosopher and author, which mitigates in favor of a responsible view. He is a professor of philosophy at Cal State University, Hayward, and his prior books include a biography of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein and Lewis Carroll's Symbolic Logic. The result is a book which is clearly written and, while basically sympathetic, is certainly not an adulatory "house job." ... "Erhard's soap opera makes up 75% of the book and is by far the easiest reading. Tougher going, and worth it, are the passages labeled 'Intersections.' In these Bartley gives splendidly concise reviews of the philosophical traditions upon which Erhard drew for his est training." Citation: "The participatory theater of est," by Steve McNamara, Pacific Sun, Dec 8-14, 1978. --MLKLewis (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And another: "Bartley's book is a beautifully written, provocative portrait of Erhard's search for the fully-realized human being, the Self. He skillfully follows Erhard from his childhood through a tumultuous marriage and career that would eventually send him West is search of a dream - a search that would lead him through numerous consciousness disciplines. Bartley gives us, in synopsis form, insights into each of these - Maltz, Maslow and Rogers; Dale Carnegie, Gestalt and Scientology; Alan Watts and Zen (this being the essential discipline for Erhard)." Kathi Martin, managing Editor, New Realities, Vol. 11, No. 3, p.35 --MLKLewis (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

MLKLewis, thanks for adding the Psychology Today review. I'd encourage you to add the Gale review, and the second half of the Pacific Sun review as well (from "The result is ..."). The last review, in New Realities, is a little too fringey for my liking, but I think with those three reviews added, we should have achieved a balance. --JN466 19:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I have re-ordered the critical reception to reflect a sense of order - from positive to fairly neutral to negative - and the negative reviews have been shrunk and gutted. Repair is under way. What we have now, fellow editors, is not balance: it is an attempt at positive spin. And I have watched these edits and generally acquiesced to Jayen's in the interest of fairness. But we are past that at the moment. Sensei48 (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the large group of positive reviews at the beginning of the section. I think we should start with the New York Review of Books, Kirkus and Booklist, as these are among the most prestigious review publications and represent the centre of gravity of review overall, and then follow with Psychology Today and so forth, from positive to negative. --JN466 01:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's try that. But I'd suggest something else. The problem, especially but not only with the positive ones, is the length of the direct quotations. I believe these should be pared down to their essences - to a well-chosen positive, negative, or mixed sentence.Sensei48 (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If we manage to do that well, the section will be much improved. --JN466 03:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review

How does one see the GA review that was done on this entry? IMO, this entry should never have passed such a review. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Workshop#This_is_how_one_writes_GAs.3F. I'd like to see how that happened but don't know where to look. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I found it. Talk:Werner Erhard (book)/GA1. I can't for the life of me understand how this passed criteria 3 and 4. I can't ask the reviewer, of course, as that person has since been banned from the project. Great.Griswaldo (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have NPOV-tagged the content summary, and plan to do some work on it. For a book unanimously described as sympathetic to Erhard, the content summary sounds implausibly negative. I have both a copy of the book itself, and access to the three-page synopsis by Jeter in Cults and the Family. I've also corrected a misquote and a misattribution in the review section, and rewritten the review section based on the existing sources. --JN466 19:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Draft reception section

I've had a go at a revised draft, per the discussion two sections above. See if you think it works:

Reception

The book was a bestseller in 1978, taking 8th place on the TIME non-fiction bestseller list of November 20, 1978. Bartley told The Evening Independent in February 1979 that the book had sold a total of 110,000 copies and gone through five editions. The growing numbers of est graduates contributed to strong sales.

Jonathan Lieberson, writing for The New York Review of Books, described the book as "attractively written, never shrill or unduly proselytizing, careful to avoid the hysteria and tribalism that usually characterize the early years of movements like est", but considered Bartley to have "fallen" for Erhard. Given Bartley's previous work, Lieberson stated, he might have made an ideal interpreter of Erhard, but he found this expectation "disappointed [although] the book is nevertheless instructive". A review of Werner Erhard in Kirkus Reviews similarly concluded, "Too entranced to be truly objective, Bartley is nonetheless an insightfully partial observer." Booklist stated that Bartley, as an est student, had made the "mistake of being too close to his subject to be objective or critical."

In Psychology Today, Morris B. Parloff wrote, "William Warren Bartley III has written this biography of Werner "carefully, lovingly, and well", stating that Bartley had set himself "three tasks: (1) to tell of Werner's education and transformation and 'completion' of his relationship with his family, (2) to describe the various 'disciplines' that Werner encountered in his search prior to creating est, and (3) to provide a 'literary statement of the fundamental presuppositions, theoretical and practical, behind Werner's own perspectives, as it has been embodied in oral form, in the est training and educational program.'" Kris Jeter, writing in Cults and the Family, commented that "wise researchers know and teach that one should be in love with their research topic", and counted Bartley's book among several in which "this love was highly evident". Steve McNamarra, in the Pacific Sun, said that the book was "clearly written and, while basically sympathetic" was not "an adulatory 'house job'." McNamarra found the sections detailing Erhard's "soap opera", making up three-quarters of the book, the easiest to read, while the "intersections", passages in which Bartley provided concise summaries of the philosophical traditions underpinning Erhard's est training, were tougher but ultimately rewarding.

Kenneth Wayne Thomas, in Intrinsic Motivation at Work, described the book as "somewhat sympathetic" to Erhard and the est philosophy; Steve Jackson, writing in Westword, similarly included it among "books sympathetic to Erhard, est and Landmark", written by an "old friend of Erhard's". Stephen Goldstein, in a Washington Post review, said Bartley had made it "obvious from the start that he cares about his subject and his own est experience" and had told "a rather simple, straightforward story that pretty much lets you draw your own conclusions [about Erhard] or keep the ones you have already reached." A reviewer in Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries stated he was "enthusiastic about this book", praising the "personal quality [of] the narrative, which, though, sometimes becomes overly detailed." He highly recommended the book for general and college libraries focused on the social sciences.

Other commentators felt that the book was unduly favourable to Erhard. A review of the book in The Christian Century stated that Bartley had got "sucked into" writing a "promo on Erhard, founder of one of the pseudo-therapies of the '70s." The Los Angeles Times commented that "[Bartley's] philosophical justification of est as a mishmash of totalitarianism, hucksterism and existentialism makes this book more a public relations product than an objective study." A Chicago Tribune review described the book as a "painstaking [...] act of devotion" that nevertheless failed in its mission: "No one reading it is likely to agree with Bartley that the founder of est is a philosopher and spiritual leader of Gandhian magnitude except the already convinced." James R. Fisher, in Six Silent Killers: Management's Greatest Challenge, and Suzanne Snider, writing for The Believer magazine, referred to Bartley's book as a "hagiography", and Rachel Jones of Noseweek considered the book "sycophantic". A review in The Evening Independent described Bartley as Erhard's "friend and admitted booster", telling his "often-sordid story in detail." E. C. Dennis, writing for Library Journal, found that Bartley's work "has a slick tone and more than a trace of hero worship". Dennis acknowledged that the book gave "the full details of Erhard's 'soap opera,' often in his own words," but was critical of Bartley's writing, saying he cast "a Freud's-eye-view on his subject's youthful failings, but after the famous 'transformation' his tone becomes almost reverential." Dennis stated that the book failed to ask important questions, but that large public libraries would be required to carry a copy, given its status as an "authorized" biography.

--JN466 03:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The chief problem I intended to correct and will try to do so if possible is to cut the extensive quotation from Parloff as unnecessarily long and out of place here. "Carefully, lovingly, and well" plus a little more reaction is all that is needed here. The three goals things doesn't fit; if it belongs anywhere, it would be in the description of the book using Parloff as a source.Sensei48 (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"required" is the wrong word at the end - no library can be "required" to carry anything. Previous version "necessary" also misrepresents. Pls submit a complete sentence from Dennis in this regard. No library has necessity or requirement.Sensei48 (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right on both counts. The original wording for Dennis was "He notes, however, that since the book is an "authorized" biography, it will be necessary for large public libraries to have a copy." I don't have access to the source. --JN466 19:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the proposed rewrite. As for the Dennis: why not change it to read, Dennis stated that the book failed to ask important questions, but that large public libraries should carry a copy, given its status as an "authorized" biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLKLewis (talk • contribs) 22:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that works, and the proposed rewrite looks good to me as well and maintains a nice, neutral tone. But to my other point - I think the Parloff quotation is too long, and some of it is misplaced. The three point description of Bartley's intent seems to me to be more valuable as a source for a description of the book, either as a direct quotation or as a paraphrase using the 3 point part as a source. The "carefully, lovingly, and well" part is the reaction, and I am sure that Parolff had more to say on that. A slight amplification there and a re-placement of the three points would be most effective, I think.Sensei48 (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you want to drop it in? --JN466 00:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a very balanced "Book Review"

For an article purporting to be a book review, it seems to be strangely constructed. Only 23 lines (about a quarter of the total) are devoted to the section headed 'Contents' which actually talks about what is in the book. This is surely inadequate treatment of a 279 page volume? Even then, the few topics that are mentioned appear to have been cherry-picked to put the most negative spin possible on the book's subject. This does not do justice to a work than seems to me to have taken on the task of showing the many facets of a complex character. DaveApter (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the crux of it all is that the article is not "purporting to be a book review." It is an encyclopedia article about a book whose notability, like that of its subject, involves a good deal of controversy. The edits reflected by some of the discussion above are trying to achieve some semblance of balance. A book review, on the other hand, generally involves analysis and judgment which should not be part of an encyclopedia article. I would disagree about the "cherry picking" part and would note that there are a number of editors who seek to remove pertinent information about the controversy engendered by Erhard's life and work across the whole spectrum of Wikipedia articles related to him. The details presented in the content section are relevant to understanding the controversy examined elsewhere in the article. If you feel that there are significant aspects of the book that are not or under-represented in the contents section, then by all means you should add them with sources to help achieve appropriate balance - which would militate against content removal, especially since virtually every sentence in that section is sourced.regards, Sensei48 (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We know that the contents section needs work; hence the template. The book was widely described as flattering to Erhard, and the content summary we give would hardly make you suspect that. There is a good description of the book's content in Cults and the Family that communicates the flavour much better. If you want to have a go at expanding it, be my guest; I meant to, but haven't gotten round to it yet. --JN466 10:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the Content section?

We seem to have consensus above that the Content section of the book does not provide an accurate summary, and is certainly not consistent with the statements elsewhere in the article that it is biased in favour of its subject. Could we build up a list of suggestions here of what should be covered in that section? DaveApter (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Asa far as I can see, the section may need a balanced addition equally weighted to what is already there. Note that the opening of the section states "The book covers three related aspects: it describes Erhard's personal life story, including his family relationships; it details the various schools of thought Erhard had come across in his personal search, before creating the est program; and it provides an overview of the basic practical and theoretical assumptions underlying Erhard's outlook, as transmitted in the est program." The first two of these are presented, though they might be better organized; the third element is not covered in this section.Sensei48 (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll put up a list of bullet points suggesting what should be included, and we'll see if we can work towards agreement. DaveApter (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Bias in the Background section

Is there not undue weight being given to the negative opinions about est in the background section? DaveApter (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think not. Whatever one feels about est, this is a factual and sourced sentence: "est was controversial: critics characterized the training methods as brainwashing,[9][10][11][12] and suggested that the program had fascistic and narcissistic tendencies.[6] Proponents asserted that it had a profoundly positive impact on people's lives.[6][13][14]" Both assertions are sourced. If anything, the article underplays the negative reaction to est in the country at large at the time - which is appropriate here because this brief section is supposed to provide a factual background to clarify the contents of the book, not provide more discussion of the controversial aspects of the program. Sensei48 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that est excited a good deal of controversy, or that all of those statements are factual and sourced; but I do think that the passage has been deliberately constructed to give excessive emphasis to numerically minor opinions with pejorative overtones, and the views of the overwhelmingly larger numbers of "Proponents" (itself perhaps a loaded term?) thrown in as an afterthought. Incidentally, I personally have no direct experience of est, apart from an introduction I went to in 1975 which did not greatly impress me. But I have a great many friends who did the training and without exception they speak highly of it. DaveApter (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, but your last sentence really cannot be relevant. Logically it is an inductive statement, and for Wikipedia it would constitute WP:OR. I disagree with the thought that negative reaction to est was a "numerically minor opinion." If anything, est- and Erhard-related articles in Wikipedia underplay the extent of the controversy and the extent to which the it was regarded as a crack-pot "new age" bit of nonsense by the overwhelming majority of the general public, much like Scientology is and has been. The negative sourced material here expresses that and says exactly what the sources say. The phrasing of "proponents" could be fleshed out more, I suppose, and present a bit more of what the sources say. But proponents is the correct word; the general public response in the U.S. in the 70s was overwhelmingly derisive. Actually, for the article to suggest a balance where none existed would be misleading.Sensei48 (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Firstly, I'm sorry if I confused the issue with that final sentence; that was intended in the spirit of disclosure of my personal viewpoint, rather than a justification of my estimates of the balance of opinion.

I think your formulation here expresses more of a fair comment than the passage in the article. It strikes me as far more accurate to say something like "it was regarded as a crack-pot "new age" bit of nonsense by the overwhelming majority of the general public", than to go on about "brainwashing" and "narcisistic and fascistic tendencies". The refences for these latter claims are pretty weak btw. For example, ref [9] is a flippant and satirical article in a popular magazine, and the remark about "brainwashed" is a throwaway line clearly intended metaphorically. I haven't managed yet to track down the texts of the other citations, but from their characters, I doubt if they really give these judgements intended in any literal sense either. DaveApter (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wittgenstein "renowned"

A minor point - I see that the adjective "renowned" has been removed in connection with the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Surely this is both uncontroversially true and also worthy of mention? Although almost universally regarded as a major figure by professional academic philosophers, he is largely unknown to the general public. DaveApter (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the POV factor, it is not the kind of adulatory adjective one finds in an encyclopedia article. Note that no such adjective is appended to Kierkegaard.Sensei48 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree to differ there, and as I said it's a minor point. I can't see any POV issues here, or see "renowned" as being 'adulatory' rather than merely descriptive. The dictionary defines it as meaning "famous, celebrated, notable" (which Wittgenstein undoubtedly was, within academic circles), and in this context of giving a brief overview of Bartley's background, I think it is helpful to he general reader to be given some sense of this. The Wikipedia article on Wittgenstein says "In 1999 his posthumously published Philosophical Investigations (1953) was ranked as the most important book of 20th-century philosophy, standing out as "...the one crossover masterpiece in twentieth-century philosophy, appealing across diverse specializations and philosophical orientations".[3] Bertrand Russell described him as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived". Would you object to "notable"? DaveApter (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Agreed it is a minor point, but first, I really do not understand why Wittgenstein requires any introduction to the general reader more than Kierkegaard does. He is no less famous, as famous as any philosopher in the 20th century might be. A Wikilink is all that is necessary. I would also suggest that you won't find such adjectives appended to any personage in Britannica or the like.Sensei48 (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK - you clearly feel more strongly that either epithet should be omitted than I feel that it improves matters, so I'll concede the point. It's tangential to the main subjects of the article in any case. DaveApter (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)