Talk:Outrageous Betrayal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Outrageous Betrayal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Outrageous 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 Date Process Result November 20, 2007 Good article nominee Listed November 22, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Scientology Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Low-importance). Spirituality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

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]