This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

These two sections are about Werner Erhard not the company itself. They really should be in the Werner Erhard article. If no one has anything to say about this for a couple of days, I am going to move these sections to the Werner Erhard Article. Buddysystem 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They are already in that article as well. They are extremely relevant to this article, and take up a very minute amount of space, and should stay in the article. Thanks. Smee 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Smeelgova- can you say more about why you see these as so relevant? Buddysystem 18:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They depict in detail the nature of the organization. Smee 18:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

I love the family tree you created. Thank you for putting in the work to do that. What do you mean by "the nature of the organization"? It seems sufficient to mention that the founder's brothers and sister were both involved, without going into other details about the family. The fact that you said "they are already in the other article" seems to prove my point. How about we just reference the other article: "For more information on Erhard's family, see [[Werner Erhard"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roccoconon ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

• I am not sure I understand your meaning, all siblings depicted were at one point in time involved with EST, WEA, and Landmark, and are thus relevant to all articles. Smee 20:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Right, I'm just saying I think the family tree is a little overkill just for brothers and sisters. Mentioning that Joan, Harry, and Nathan are brothers and sisters under Staff/Participants/Individuals is sufficient, I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roccoconon ( talk • contribs).
• Okay, I removed that section then, of the Staff/Participants/Individuals. Smee 20:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Most of the statements here are inaccurate -- just read the references given. I propose the section be removed. WE&A and Werner Erhard were never found guilty of tax evasion and there is not a 'civil tax evasion'. FreedomByDesign 23:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please read the referenced citations. The cases heavily reference WEA and involve the organization directly. Smee 23:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

• • I am removing this section, simply because it is 1) about Werner Erhard not the company, and 2) It is fully covered in the Werner Erhard article. You can't miss it there. Ebay3 20:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read through both the explaination of Margolis schemes ( http://www.assetprotectionbook.com/reinvoicing.htm) and the Erhard v. IRS decision of 1995 from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ( http://www.assetprotectionbook.com/erhard.htm)cited in this article to figure out some of the legal questions

1. The decision mentions WEA was a sole proprietorship of Erhard's, so I have changed that in the article.
2. The "Taxation Issues" section of this Wikipedia article says: "In a separate[citation needed] issue, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found Erhard accountable for tax-evasion February 8, 1995 in the case "Werner H. Erhard v. Commissioner Internal Revenue Service". " As I said, I just read through that decision, which dealt with est, not WEA. No Tax Evasion for WEA-- The decision says: "In May 1980, Erhard issued a memorandum advising his staff that Erhard, Margolis, and the task force had jointly determined to replace Margolis as the general and tax counsel of est". It does not seem, then, that WEA would be setup as part of a Margolis scheme, added with the fact that WEA was a sole proprietorship. The whole point of making WEA a sole proprietorship seems to be to make it impossible for WEA to be a Margolis scheme (whereas it seems est was). Unless someone can find evidence that WEA was a Margolis scheme, I'd like to remove any mention of 'Margolis scheme' or 'tax evasion' from the article (innocent before proven guilty). Roccoconon 00:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent. Thanks for working through those somewhat dense legal texts. These articles on est, WEA, Landmark and Werner Erhard would be a lot better if each article focused on its subject, rather than bringing in a lot of other, loosely related material. Ratagonia 07:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As Pedant17 suggested, perhaps it would be best if a new article were created to address directly this "loosely related material" as you put it, however directly related the organizations and individuals actually are in reality to their predecessors... Smee 07:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Seems like this specific information should be presented (at length) in the WEA article, mentioned (with see also:) on the Werner Erhard article, and not mentioned here in the WEA article. Ratagonia 16:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As Werner Erhard and Associates has been established as a sole proprietorship, subsidiaries could not have existed, so I deleted that section from the box. Ftord1960 23:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The caption for the photo of Erhard on Larry King Live incorrectly states that Erhard was on the show December 20. The linked transcript says that Heber Jentzsch was the guest. They played some clips of Erhard, and Erhard's brother Harry Rosenberg called in, but Erhard was not on the show on December 20, as the linked transcript shows. I have not found a reliable source for the actual date Erhard was on the show, but the following sources agree it was December 8, 1993 in an episode titled "Whatever Happened to Werner Erhard?":

• http://www.xs4all.nl/~anco/mental/randr/aworks.htm
• http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/carto/thoburn.htm

I'm going to change the date in the caption and remove the transcript link. If someone wants to put the Dec 20 transcript somewhere else that's relevant or can find the Dec 8 transcript, great! Roccoconon 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• This information is most certainly relevant, and belongs in the article. Please do not remove it. Thanks. Smee 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
• I don't want to remove it, but where can we move it to since it doesn't match the photo? Roccoconon 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarified it. Smee 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Looks good. Thanks. We need to do the same on the Werner Erhard page. Roccoconon 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the images are under the "Taxation Issues" and "Abuse Allegations" sections in each respective article. I think this violates NPOV by implying that's why he was on Larry King. He was in fact on Larry King once he went into exhile. Hence, the episode title "Whatever Happened to Werner Erhard?". The Dec 20 episode focused on Scientology. It's a minor point, but I definitely think we should move the image to the post-1991 section or the Scientology section. Roccoconon 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• He most probably appeared on Larry King in 1993 discussing the abuse and taxation issues. Therefore the image placement is fine. Smee 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
• I very much disagree. Erhard's quote replayed on the Dec 20 show from the Dec 8 show is "Well, Larry, I've chosen not to come to the United States at this time because, being in the U.S., I'm just too easy a target for the campaign of harassment being waged against me by the church of Scientology, " ( transcript) and the name of the episode was "Whatever happened to Werner Erhard?" It seems appropriate to put the image in the post-1991 section. Roccoconon 21:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright. Smee 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I reworked the lead to say WHAT WEA was, and to state more clearly its relationships to EST and Landmark Forum. Landmark Forum is not the successor organization to WEA. I believe that in questions of corporate governance, it is appropriate to use Art Schreiber (corporate counsel) as a primary source, rather than various journalistic references (secondary sources) that may not get the technical details correct. Tertiary POV sources such as Rick Ross are not a Reliable Source on this subject. Wiki generally prefers secondary sources, but in the details of corporate structure, the primary source is likely to be more accurate and not of questionable POV. (I should come up with a better reference for this, and will dig around later today if I have a chance). Ratagonia 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Margolis Schemes. WEA was not a suspected Margolis scheme (whereas, EST was) and therefore it is inappropriate to speculate that it is. (If you'd like to put this back in, find a NPOV source that states that WEA is a Margolis Scheme, please). Ratagonia 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with these edits, please Talk here, or work on the details, rather than reverting in toto. Please, and thank you. Ratagonia 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• The use of Name changes in the title is not appropriate, but I cannot think of another name. If Werner Erhard was running all of the organizations listed here it would make sense to use the term name changes. Does anyone have any other ideas for what might work? Ebay3 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• It seems that the organization name history is located in 3 different places. Can it just be in one place with simple, factual information? FreedomByDesign 02:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• The table seems outside the scope of this article because this article is about Werner Erhard & Associates specifically and solely, so this timeline seems irrelevant. There is no sourcing to identify the relationship between WE&A and these other orgs, so it also seems flimsy in it's accuracy. I deleted it. Ftord1960 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• • No article in Wikipedia should confine itself "specifically and solely" to its title alone: the availability of the miracle of hypertext links consistently (and desirably) connects our work to other subjects -- broader or more specific ones. Wikipedia fosters building the web and frowns on maiming and isolating articles by destroying links or explanation. Apparently flimsy and or unsourced material calls for improvement rather than heavy-handed deletion. Let's bring the table back and work together on enhancing it and its links to the article.-- Pedant17 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• The timeline appears to be well beyond the scope of this article and is confusing. There do not appear to be direct ties to the different companies listed and this appears to be a timeline for Erhard himself. Lsi john 19:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Who defines what constitutes something "well beyond the scope of this article"? --If you find something confusing, what does it profit you to tolerate its deletion? At least we can continually improve material in articles, whereas deleted material may remain condemned to oblivion, its merits forgotten. -- Herewith the orphaned text/link under discussion:

== Successive organizational names ==

-- Pedant17 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The link to the IRS V Erhard and the diagram is superfluous and not relevant to this article. I read through the whole thing expecting to find something significant, criminal, sinister, whatever. All this thing is is a very boring account of an appeal of a tax decision by the IRS. The appeal was denied on further review. OK. So???? What is the point of having this in the article? All I can conclude is that someone put it in to try to insinuate something about the subject of the article which if it is the case is in violation of WP:POV. Ebay3 17:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. The IRS links suddenly appeared in several articles, presumably for the reasons you note. Lsi john 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You can argue with that very readily. You could start by noting that the claim that the links betwen the IRS case, the diagram and the article appears superfluous constitutes a mere assertion: the claim lacks factual support. You could continue by noting that the view that the material lacks relevance to the article appears equally as a mere assertion lacking factual detail in its support -- and by concluding that claims without support count for nothing. You could suggest that the your fellow-editors do not necessarily include factual material in Wikipedia with the purpose of providing "criminal, sinister, whatever" sensationalism. You could assert that some facts may appear "very boring" to some people -- but not necessarily to others. You could point out that straw-clutching last-resort speculation about the motives of fellow-editors fails to assume good-faith editing. You practically have a duty to make the world at large aware that WP:POV -- the help-text on "Describing points of view" does not consist of rules that one violates, but of suggestions on dealing with the necessary presence of various points of view -- especially when treating of subjects that some regard as controversial. -- I would suggest that we have no need to clutter discussion-pages with what amounts to vapid wholesale statements of agreement: rather discussion pages have the purpose of discussing improvements to articles. -- Pedant17 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to clean out the POV from the entire series. But most of the articles appear to have been written by a rather POV editor and much of the work is either OR, poorly sourced, mis-quoted sources, or totally wrong sources. Its been quite a challenge so far. Lsi john 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the phrase "the entire series" means, but it concerns me extremely that anyone should have the stated aim of "cleaning out the POV". One does not improve Wikipedia articles by "cleaning out" material which one regards as biased: rather one needs to balance one viewpoint with other viewpoints of equivalent merit and Wikipedia-worthiness, altering (rather than "cleaning out") any inflammatory phraseology to more neutral formulations in the process. -- Broad speculation about the perceived motives or actions of fellow-editors over a range (ill-defined) of articles does not belong in article-talkpages, but on userpages ( -- address complaints to the person who can deal with them...). Should one choose one's challenges? -- Pedant17 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Image (and case) highly notable

• Hrm, let's see. Erhard/WEA/EST appealed to Court of Appeals, and lost. Appealed to Supreme Court of the United States, they refused to hear his petition. The case itself explains the "circuitous" (not my word, but Appellate Judge) money transactions of ALL of his various business dealings at the time. The case itself is cited even to this day by the United States Tax Court as precedent in many, many other cases. This is notable and highly relevant. Others seem to think that this PUBLIC DOMAIN image has no place in any article on the project. This is most amusing. Smee 20:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

• *Alert!* Weasel words "others seem to think". *Alert!*

For the record, I'm unaware of anyone who said that it doesn't belong in any article. Lsi john

And it's always good to see that an editor can be amused. Humor is important. Lsi john 20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Let us see what other individuals think about this PUBLIC DOMAIN image. Smee 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps a resourceful editor could write a highly sourced article from extremely reliable and relevant sources on the tax case? Hint, hint: This would also be an opportunity for a highly coveted DYK award for any editor who wanted to take on the horrific task of Google searching sources! Lsi john 20:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Your sarcastic, caustic remarks are not appreciated. But this notable highly cited case could use an article. I will see about finding some reputable citations... Thanks for the idea, whether it was good faith or not. Smee 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

• Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I forgot to check the list to see who was allowed to be sarcastic and caustic today. It was you, who demanded that nobody TALK IN CAPS, right? Mr most amusing. (diffs available upon request) Lsi john 20:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, lots of sarcasm from this user today. The CAPS was only used to emphasize that the image is PUBLIC DOMAIN. And actually the only free-use image currently being used in the article, the others are fair use. If you were offended by the caps use in this case, I apologize. But it was nothing personal, just meant to emphasize the Public Domain status of the image, for others. Smee 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

• Yes, but when I used CAPS to emphasize my IMPORTANT words, you got all hurt and stuff. Now its okay, when you need to EMPHASIZE? That is most amusing.(c)Smee-2007 Lsi john 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Point taken. I apologize, and will do my best not to use CAPS again. Smee 20:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

• Apology accepted, though there is no real need to apologize, Mr Smee, sir. And, it is good to see that you actually are human, and can admit that you are not perfect. For a while I was afraid that perhaps you might be ethereal. Welcome to the land of the mortals. Lsi john 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sarcasm is not appreciated. While I still wish for comments from other users re: the public domain image, I will get to work on finding reputable citations for an article more specific to the Supreme Court case itself. Smee 21:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

• Then, perhaps you need to develop a good sense of humor. I always enjoy a good bit of sarcasm, in either direction. As for your forthcoming DYK, you're welcome. Some need awards, others are fulfilled simply by their contribution. Be careful you don't slip back to ethereal. I was beginning to think we might actually be able to get along in a real conversation. Lsi john 21:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I do not appreciate sarcasm, nope. Especially not caustic sarcasm, not meant in good faith whatsoever, nope. Time to move along and work on the new articles. However, if others comment on the inclusion of this public domain image that went to the Supreme Court, that would be most interesting. Smee 21:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

• Well, for someone who doesn't like sarcasm, I find your remarks most interesting (c)2007-Smee all rights reserved Do you actually talk that way with your friends? Lsi john 21:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• What is this "(c)2007-Smeeall rights reserved " you are doing? Please stop. Smee 21:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

• I am ascribing recognition to the author of the laudable comments "most interesting", "most amusing", highly amusing, highly reputable, highly sourced (and others). I believe it is extremely important that we show proper recognition to any such enlightened individuals, who create such genial phrases, clearly designed to promote Agape harmony at the expense of one's self. I find it most interesting that such attributions would vex you. I should think, conversely, that you would find it most flattering and highly uplifting to be credited with creating such highly philanthropic phrases. I will now take a wiki-break and consider this most puzzling revelation. Lsi john 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• You may refer to me as Smee. Please do not use this highly unusual "copyright" thing, and please remove it from your above comments. Thank you. Smee 22:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

The fascinating diagramming (pictures worth 1001 words) of the Werner Erhard tax-system, incorporating est and WEA in its flows as it does, appears eminently suitable for illustrating a variety of facts and practices in a variety of articles: Werner Erhard and Associates, Werner Erhard / Jack Rosenberg, taxation / tax evasion. Margolis schemes and perhaps capitalism. I would like to express gratitude to the government of the United States of America for making such material publically available and thus fostering free speech and open discussion. -- Pedant17 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Without having to read a lengthy passage of the circular money transactions, this is very much a case of a picture doing more justice than a passage would. I agree it should be kept. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 04:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for sharing your views, and I agree with you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC).

If you ask me this diagram in the article is questionable. A cherry picked public domain document that without any explanation that requires a CPA to decipher is just odd. What is the point of it being in the article? Ebay3 19:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you find the content of the diagram questionable, please ask the relevant questions of the appropriate authorities and expand the explanatory text in the article accordingly. -- If you find the inclusion of information in a Wikipedia article "odd", consider that other readers may find such information helpful and enlightening. -- If you consider a piece of information as "cherry-picked", please provide additional documentation giving corroboration or refutation from a non-cherry-picked source. You should have no difficulty in finding alternative sources if the editors inserting the objectionable material did indeed cherry-pick from the available material. -- If you find the explanation of the image provided in the article inadequate, feel free to expand the detail. Herewith a word-picture of an earlier parallel but slightly simpler system, provided by Steven M. Tipton in : Getting saved from the sixties: moral meaning in conversion and cultural change. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. ISBN  0520038681, page 329:

In essence, Erhard sold his "body of knowledge" to an overseas holding and licensing corporation, to which est pays a maximal portion of its gross income in the form of pre-tax royalties. Now located in the Netherlands, this holding corporation pays 7 percent in Dutch taxes and then sends all its profits to the tax-exempt "Werner Erhard Foundation for est" in Switzerland, which owns the holding corporation outright. est, meanwhile, pays 30 percent in American taxes on its minimal post-royalty income. All the remaining profits go to the Werner Erhard Charitable Settlement, a tax-exempt trust on the Isle of Jersey, which owns est.

Or even easier to trace -- online , in this case -- you can follow the documentation trail associated with the image to the public document http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Erhard_v._C._I._R._Docket_No._39473-85%2C_46712-86%2C_39532-87%2C_137-88._%281991%29 -- which includes (amongst much else, including descriptions of the roles of depicted entities) the official court specific commentary on this very image:

Image 1
Phase two took place on or about August 27, 1981, and was financed by three separate loans to WEA from Terla, B.V., in the total amount of $6,580,000. The proceeds of these loans were then used by WEA as follows: To est, a.e.c. for adjustments on assets purchased; to Welbehagen, B.V., for the Body of Knowledge; to Antigua Banking Ltd., as repayment of a loan and for the purchase of certain loans; to Associated Advisors for the purchase of the auxiliary sloop Sirona. On August 27, 1981, est, a.e.c. made three transfers to Welbehagen, B.V., in the total amount of $4,571,250. The following diagram reflects the money movements that were generated in phase two and the results achieved

Summarise this amount of detail into the article if you see fit.

Sometimes a diagram expresses things better than words alone, sometimes not. Please improve our understanding to the best of your ability! -- If you require a CPA to decipher something, hire a CPA (and report back to us!). Alternatively, you can gather simply from a relatively cursory overview of the diagram some encyclopedic sense of the complexity of the money-go-round involved in handling the finances of a California-based training organization such as WE&A.

-- Pedant17 01:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Before we remove the "Self-published" tag from the Werner Erhard and Associates article, it would help to address the issue of quoting self-published material or explain why we should ignore the matter. -- Pedant17 02:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Before we replace the wording "marketing and selling the est training" with "offering the est training", it would help to discuss designing and delivering as well as marketing. -- Pedant17 02:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Before removing the section on income which read:

== Income == [[Image:Est1.png|thumb|right|250px|Image 1, United States Tax Court, diagram of Werner Erhard tax transactions.]] The diagram shows sample income-flows associated with Werner Erhard and Associates ("WEA"), as detailed for a United States federal tax-case hearing. Compare [[Harry Margolis | Margolis scheme]].

with the edit-summary "not accurate", it would help to point out the nature and scope of the alleged inaccuracy or inaccuracies with a view to helping to fix it/them. -- Pedant17 02:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Werner Erhard Larry King Live.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Added {{ No more links}} to External links section. Cirt ( talk) 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)