Talk:Werner Erhard

@MLKLewis: We talked about this. And instead of acknowledging and fixing the problems you are trying to re-introduce them into the article? Like I said above: "I really need you to acknowledge that you can't use sources like that. It is very important that you understand that we have zero creative license and that we need to write exactly what the source said (without infringing on copyright). We can't just make stuff up that perhaps sounds a bit similar.". Can you please respond to that? Polygnotus (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: Your wholesale reversion of my edits indicate that you did not read through the edits I made. I did not fully revert the changes you made, instead I incorporated some of those edits in good faith. Your arguments for removing reliably sourced material above are specious and your choices reveal a bias against the subject. In regard to writing exactly what the source said, we aim to summarize what sources say in a neutral unbiased manner, which is exactly what I did in the matter what the Financial Times management editor Andrew Hill wrote. MLKLewis (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I did read it. And no, what you did is not WP:NPOV. You re-introduced WP:SYNTH errors, WP:NPOV problems, WP:PROMO problems and factual errors. This is an encyclopedia; we do not promote people here. Look at the article of someone almost universally regarded as a good person. Mother Teresa got a criticism section. MLK jr got a criticism section. You can probably write a criticism section for Ghandi. Do you have a COI to disclose? Have you ever done an est/Landmark course? Polygnotus (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@MLKLewis: Please stop it. You can't misrepresent sources like that. What you are doing is basically vandalism. I received the book from Amazon. Please don't make me waste more time here. Polygnotus (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

About those sources: I was about to remove the first part but Polygnotus beat me to it. Here's my edit summary, however, because it's worth assessing those sources: "/* Soviet Union and Northern Ireland */ the hilton reference lacks a title and page numbers. committee and the institute seems to be some kind of think-thanky organization at best, possibly a quaker outfit, with odd issue numbers, weird title, missing page numbers, missing author. FT article--who is the "me" in "Erhard tells me"--what is this?" Those sources, in short, are just incredibly problematic, and I hadn't yet gotten to the second part, which is also very iffy. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Should we just request a block for MLKLewis from all pages related to Landmark? How? They keep editwarring and they are not here to write a neutral encyclopedia based on reliable sources. They think that despite their COI they should be allowed to make POV edits. Landmark sock- and meatpuppets have wasted an insane amount of time of Wikipedians. Polygnotus (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Predictably, this happened. Polygnotus (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

About that edit... I recognize one of the sources that was restored from a previous discussion, back in 2019:

• Oran, Suzan; Conard, Scott (2014). The Art of Medical Leadership. Wheatmark, Inc. pp. 7, 8. ISBN 978-1627871778.

As I said at the time, the cited pages are a passing mention of a specific course. Even if the book is broadly reliable (which is debatable), it provides nothing of value to this particular article. To edit war to restore this source (from 2014) to support claims about "A major part of Erhard's current work" is frankly bizarre. Grayfell (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Oran is also not a neutral independent 3rd party who just happens to mention him in a reliable source, but someone who works for Erhard. Quote: "I (Suzan Oran) honor Werner Erhard for his influence on my work and in my life. I had the privilege of working with and being trained to lead seminars by the staff at Werner Erhard and Associates.". Polygnotus (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus, Grayfell, please take it to AIV and ask for an indef block--I gotta run and get this day started. The user is NOTHERE to improve our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Never mind! Drmies (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

While reviewing the above, back in 2018 at Talk:Werner Erhard/Archive 3#Erhard's later work I said:

An author is generally going to be understood as someone who has written books or plays. The article currently does a poor job of supporting this. To make sure this isn't an oversight, I looked at WorldCat. I had a very hard time finding good examples of works by. There is a lot of search noise, but I found very, very few books which list him as the sole author. All of those appear obscure and short. OCLC 186984316 for example, is only held by a single library, in Sweden. (Most of the rest of the results are for a different person with the same name) From this, I am not confident that Werner Erhard should be described in the lead of the article as an "author". We shouldn't take this kind of thing for granted.

Since there was no response, I have removed "author" from the lead. It isn't clear that reliable, independent sources describe him as an author. It would be misleading to imply otherwise. Even with sources the current article fails to support this in the body, so it is premature in the lead. For context, every single one of the listed works is short and co-written with one or more additional writers. I would be somewhat surprised if the OCLC link above wasn't also coauthored, based on this history. Grayfell (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. We need to follow what reliable sources say. Polygnotus (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Does he fail WP:NAUTHOR? Is the subject actually notable for anything. If not I plan to send it to Afd. scope_creep^Talk 07:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think AfD is the way to go yet, but I guess I could be convinced otherwise if you wanted to make the (very difficult) case for WP:TNT. I believe Erhard has been substantially discussed by multiple independent works, so he meets WP:GNG, but the current article is such a mish-mash that it's hard to identify what is useful and what isn't. Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

That settles that. I wasn't sure and don't plan to make a case for TNT, for sure. I agree its rather too large for what's covered. It could be half that size, be much more succint, more accurate and be better for it. scope_creep^Talk 07:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully Polygnotus, I would like to know your justification for reverting this edit that was based on representing reliably sourced material. The edit (which is not the same text as any prior versions of the Subsequent work section) is based on highly credible reliable sources including The New York Times, The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal. I find it difficult to understand what is objectionable about this edit. Please explicitly say what your objection is so we can work towards a resolution. MLKLewis (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

A very similar edit has been discussed and rejected already by multiple editors (not to mention the editwarring). There are many reasons that I could explain in detail and that we could bicker over for years but I am here in my spare time, as a volunteer.

You clearly have a conflict of interest in relation to Landmark-related articles.

COI editors should follow WP:COI and not edit the affected articles (exceptions listed here). COI editors can propose changes on the associated talkpages using the {{edit COI}} template.

The Landmarkians have done considerable damage to Wikipedia over the years. I've read the archives stretching back literal decades. The best thing that can happen now is that anyone who has done a Landmark course/volunteer(s/ed) for Landmark or has an "interest" in it stops editing articles related to Landmark and lets uninvolved people handle it.

The Landmarkians, as a group, got very significant problems with WP:IDHT, WP:STICK and WP:NPOV making collaboration with Wikipedians basically impossible.

Therefore, my advice is to move on. There are quite a few articles on Wikipedia that are fun to improve, and people will be grateful if you do. Those other articles don't have this long terrible history the Landmark-related articles have.

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Redlist_index is a huge list of redlinks that should be turned into articles. Polygnotus (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You did not respond to my request regarding the specific edit to the article, which is what this talk page is for. I did the edit following closely to Wikipedia’s policies on editing. As it says in WP:NOR: ”The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.”

The following is, line by line, the content (written in my own words while retaining the substance of the original publication) followed by the inline references used and the quotes from those references to verify the content.

During the 1990’s Erhard lectured and led programs at various international locations, such as Russia, Japan and Ireland. He had a three year contract to give courses to Soviet managers that would allow Soviet officials to study his teaching methods.

Reference: “East meets Est: The Soviets discover Werner Erhard”, (3 December 1986), The Wall Street Journal, by Robert S. Greenberger. “Mr. Erhard gave a five-day course to about 60 Soviet managers in the workers' state, his first seminar under a three-year contract that also will allow Soviet officials to study his teaching methods in the U.S."

He consulted for both businesses and government agencies in Russia.

Reference: “The Return of Werner Erhard, Father of Self-Help”, The New York Times, (November 28, 2015) by Peter Haldeman. “For several years before his latest professional reincarnation, Mr. Erhard consulted for businesses and government agencies like the Russian adult-education program the Znaniye Society and a nonprofit organization supporting clergy in Ireland.”

Reference: “Lunch with the FT”, Financial Times, "Erhard tells me that paramilitaries in Northern Ireland had a bit of trouble too, but when they did get it they disarmed as a result. He also worked with members of the first Russian parliament in 1993.”

In the early 1990’s he conducted seminars in Japan for professionals coping with their financial crisis.

Reference: “The Return of Werner Erhard, Father of Self-Help”, The New York Times, (November 28, 2015) by Peter Haldeman. “for several years, under the rubric of “mastery,” he conducted seminars for professionals coping with Japan’s financial crisis of the early 1990s.”

In 1999, Erhard and Peter Block worked with a non-profit organization for clergy and grassroots leaders to come up with new ways of thinking to deal with the peace process in Ireland.

Reference: “The Return of Werner Erhard, Father of Self-Help”, The New York Times, (November 28, 2015) by Peter Haldeman. “For several years before his latest professional reincarnation, Mr. Erhard consulted for businesses and government agencies like the Russian adult-education program the Znaniye Society and a nonprofit organization supporting clergy in Ireland.”

Reference: “Lunch with the FT”, Financial Times, "Erhard tells me that paramilitaries in Northern Ireland had a bit of trouble too, but when they did get it they disarmed as a result. He also worked with members of the first Russian parliament in 1993.”

Reference: “A Conversation with Peter Block”, Kolbe Times, (January 31, 2018), by Bill Locke. “Peter Block has also been recognized for his efforts to effect peace and reconciliation in the Northern Ireland Peace Process. In 1999, he and Werner Erhard developed The Ireland Initiative, working with clergy and grassroots leaders to develop new thinking and new conversations.”

Erhard and Michael C. Jensen, Professor of Business Administration Emeritus led seminars and training sessions at Harvard.

Reference: Leeson, Robert (2013). Hayek, A Collaborative Biography. Palgrave Macmillan. “Erhard organized and led Harvard seminars and training sessions in association with Michael Jensen, Professor of Business Administration Emeritus at Harvard Business School”

They also explored the relationship between integrity and performance in a paper published at Harvard Business School.

Reference: Kerr, James (2013). Legacy. Constable & Robinson. “In a paper published at Harvard Business School, Michael C. Jensen, Werner Erhard, and Steve Zaffron explore the relationship between integrity and performance.”

Erhard and Jensen developed and led a course on leadership that took an experience-based, rather than knowledge-based, approach to leadership. Students are asked to master integrity and authenticity, among other principles, so that they can leave the class being leaders rather than merely learning about leadership.

Reference: “The Return of Werner Erhard, Father of Self-Help”, The New York Times, (November 28, 2015) by Peter Haldeman. “In 2004, with the help of a Landmark official, Dr. Jensen developed an experiential course on integrity in leadership at the Simon Business School at the University of Rochester. The class was offered there for five years, with Mr. Erhard signing on as an instructor during its third year. It has since been taught at several universities around the world as well as at the United States Air Force Academy.”

Reference: “The Return of Werner Erhard, Father of Self-Help”, The New York Times, (November 28, 2015) by Peter Haldeman. “Briefly, the course, which owes ideological debts to the Forum and to the German philosopher Martin Heidegger, takes an experience-based, rather than knowledge-based, approach to its subject. Students master principles like integrity and authenticity in order to leave the class acting as leaders instead of merely knowing about leadership.”

The course has since been taught at several universities around the world as well as at the United States Air Force Academy.

Reference: “In 2004, with the help of a Landmark official, Dr. Jensen developed an experiential course on integrity in leadership at the Simon Business School at the University of Rochester. The class was offered there for five years, with Mr. Erhard signing on as an instructor during its third year. It has since been taught at several universities around the world as well as at the United States Air Force Academy.”

I welcome constructive discussion on the edit itself.MLKLewis (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Should I just repeat my previous comments since you seem to have ignored them? Drop the WP:STICK. Polygnotus (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that by your refusal to discuss the actual content of the article, instead reverting edits I make without reasonable explanation or interaction, that you are the one who is edit warring, and unwilling to drop the stick. Your previous comments are about me and my character, or some assumptions you have made about me personally, and are not contributions to the article or Wikipedia, and I am not willing to engage with you in that manner. Why are you refusing to practice good faith and have a meaningful discussion of the content?MLKLewis (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

So you invented your own definition of the word editwarring after nearly getting blocked for editwarring? My time on this planet is limited, and as a consultant people pay me for it. I am not interested in having endless pointless discussions with people other than my wife. Polygnotus (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing that Polygnotus or anyone else has said now or in the past which justifies the blanking of this entirely factual and well-sourced paragraph. The suggestion has been made that the material is 'promotional', a clearly spurious claim since nothing is being promoted. If this individual is notable enough to have an article at all, it is obviously relevant to include factual information about what he has been doing for the past couple of decades. MLKLewis has been scrupulously patient and courteous in providing the detailed explanation above, and merits an equally civil response rather than the insults and insinuations which have no place here. I am reinstating the edit. DaveApter (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

You can use the {{Edit COI}} template but you should not edit the article directly because of your conflict of interest. Polygnotus (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

You still haven't provided an explanation for your edit warring, and I don't know why you have the idea that you are qualified to be the arbiter of whether or not I have a conflict of interest regarding this page. DaveApter (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to respond to the edit summary that was given when my edit to The Hunger Project section was undone and labeled “promotional and irrelevant.”

First, every statement I added is directly supported by reliable, published sources—including The New York Times, the Encyclopedia of Human Rights (Taylor & Francis), The Aquarian Conspiracy (Jeremy P. Tarcher), and books by recognized authors such as Lynne Twist and Dana Meadows’s collaborators. I included the relevant quoted passages in each citation to make verification straightforward.

Second, the information is historically relevant to the article subject. The founding of The Hunger Project is a documented and notable event in Werner Erhard’s public life, frequently referenced in reliable secondary sources. The details—year of founding, co-founders, scope of the project, UN consultative status, participation numbers over time—are factual, verifiable, and place the subject’s work in broader historical and social context.

Third, I’ve avoided any promotional tone. The text uses attribution and direct quotations from sources rather than unsourced opinion. Phrases such as “an idea whose time has come” are clearly quoted from published material, not language I created. Including them is appropriate per WP:RS and WP:V when they are central to the project’s framing and stated aims.

It’s also worth noting that while some authors assumed The Hunger Project existed to directly end world hunger, Erhard’s own stated purpose in launching it was different: to generate the commitment needed to end hunger and starvation within 20 years. That distinction—between perception and Erhard’s stated goal—is covered in reliable sources and is part of the historical record.

I also want to raise a concern about the use of Rick Alan Ross’s blog/site as a reference. Ross is a self-published activist, and his writings don’t meet the standards set out in WP:RS. In the context of a biography of a living person (BLP), WP:BLP requires especially high-quality, independent, reliable sources. Self-published opinion sites like Ross’s should generally not be used for factual claims, and at best can only be cited for what Ross himself said. By contrast, the sources I included (New York Times, Encyclopedia of Human Rights, books from recognized publishers) are independent, secondary, and reliable. I’d suggest we stick to those kinds of sources rather than blogs or activist-run sites to maintain compliance with WP:RS and WP:BLP.

Finally, I would ask that if any part of the material is considered problematic under WP:PROMO or WP:UNDUE, the specific sentences in question be identified. That way, we can rephrase, attribute more explicitly, or trim as needed—rather than removing well-sourced, relevant historical content in its entirety.

My intent is not to promote but to document, with reliable sources, a significant aspect of the subject’s biography. If there are policy-based concerns, I’m happy to address them so that accurate and verifiable information can remain in the article. MLKLewis (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Over a week has gone by since I posted the detailed explanation above (see section beginning “The Hunger Project”), and no one has commented. I want to clarify that I am not restoring my original text that was reverted. Instead, I have revised the section to address the concerns raised: the new draft is more neutral and balances Erhard’s stated purpose with critics’ views. It relies only on independent, reliable secondary sources. Since there has been no response, I will move forward with adding this revised version so the article reflects verifiable and historically relevant information in compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. MLKLewis (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)