Talk:Outrageous Betrayal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: 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
WikiProject iconReligion: New religious movements Low‑importance
WikiProject icon
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconSpirituality Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lawsuit section

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
]

Dan Wakefield

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]