Talk:Est: Playing the Game/Archive 1

Notes

(9) citations, could use expansion, more citations, more info on the lawsuit to stop the book from publication and more citations on that, expansion into subsection... Smee 06:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

References

This article is about the book. External references and citations need to be addressing the book, not the subject of the book. Lsi john 13:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• And well they do. Smee 13:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Please STOP adding tags and discuss on the talk page specifically your reasoning for each individual citation. All the citations duly discuss the book itself. Smee 13:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

• Please include the citations which SPECIFICALLY address the book itself and not the additional commentary on the subject matter of the book. Only the remarks DIRECTLY related to the book are relevant here. This is not an article on the subject of the book. The additional commentary belongs in other respective articles. You already have this as a 3O from another article and you know this is true. Please remove the text which is not directly addressing the book itself. Continued reverts will be considered disruptive behavior and against wiki guidlines for relevant material. Lsi john 13:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• If the book itself is utilized/cited in reputable secondary works to discuss the very topic discussed in the book itself, this is notable to mention as well, as it goes to the usage of the book as a referenced citation in other works on the subject matter. Smee 13:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Reverting things you to get your way is unacceptable. I added the tags and you could discuss them here just as easily as you reverted them because you don't like them. You are edit warring and This is a warning to stop. Lsi john 13:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the third article you have done this with in the past 24 hours. I make an edit, and you revert it. Please stop edit warring with me every time I edit an article. Lsi john 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have asked for comment from a neutral editor on the matter. You appeared suddenly on this article, never having edited it before. It appears to me as if your only interest in this article is to get a rise out of me somehow, as I have worked very hard on finding multiple reputable citations from notable secondary sources for this, and the book's citation in those sources is notable. But no matter, the citations will remain. Smee 13:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

• Yes, I see your biased wording in the 3O request which, once again, misrepresents the objection I am raising. You already have a 3O opinion about including material which does not specifically address the subject of the article. This is not an article on EST, this is an article on the book. Sources which are not specifically commenting on the book itself are not relevant here. Sources which mention the book, can be included as mentioning the book, but cannot be used as an open door to include other material in that source. You already know this and your biased wording in the 3O misrepresents this debate. Lsi john 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I find it so amusing and fascinating that you do not have the ability to carry on a normal, polite discussion, without throwing around terms like "biased wording", and the like. Quite intriguing, actually. Smee 14:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Third Opinion

For the neutral editor, please comment here.

Comment by Smee (talk · contribs)

Mentioning in this article that the book itself is cited in secondary works, and then mentioning the context in which the book is cited, is notable and should be included in the article. It goes directly to contemporary usage of the book, and the book's perfusion into other reputable secondary sources and modern day usage. Smee 14:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

1. It is notable to mention other reputable secondary sources that utilize this book as a citation in their works.
2. It is then also worthwhile to mention in what context these reputable secondary sources utilize the work, and what material they use it to support/discuss.
3. Thus, this is the context that these reputable secondary sources are currently being used in the article itself.

Smee 14:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Comments by other editors

Notably absent is the actual reference itself, yet room was found for surrounding material as a basis for the missing reference. If the reference being made to this book is significant, relevant and worthy of inclusion, then the full citation itself should be included. Finding an insignificant casual reference to this book, is not an open door to include other material. Smee already knows this and received a 3O on a very similar request in another article less than 24 hours ago. Lsi john 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What I see is the inclusion of 'passing references', in an attempt to build notability for this article. Lsi john 14:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Smee, You are now doing exactly what you asked me not to do here. Please stop. Lsi john 14:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please label your subsection as I have, and not "other editors". Smee 14:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Offering Third Opinion

This article is not long enough to make a claim on serious notability, yet it is well cited and lays out its claims for what notability it does possess. I believe the citations should remain, though the authors' connections to est should be removed, as this additional material does nothing toward advancing the understanding of the subject of the article in question. In particular, I would remove these portions: Biersdorf had attended the Erhard Seminars Training program as a way of familiarizing himself with this aspect of the human potential movement[2]. Biersdorf discussed the overall message, techniques employed, as well as his personal response to the training[2].

and

...Vitz wrote that Est trainers were taught to "..resemble as closely as possible both the teaching and personality.." of Werner Erhard[3].

Otherwise, the citations can stand on their own, as they reference the book directly or provide an appropriate lead-in to the material cited. Snuppy 16:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Snuppy, thank you for your time and your opinion. I will implement your recommendations. Lsi john 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Followup:

A couple of the comments also appear to be an OR analysis of what the authors were doing when they cited this book.

Would this also be included as something to be removed, as it seems to be along the same lines of "does nothing to advance the understanding..."?

"after attending an Erhard Seminars Training seminar and analyzing it from a psychological perspective."

and no foundation is laid for this claim:

"while attempting to analyze the est experience"

and the actual context of the reference isn't given but is (perhaps improperly) implied with this text:

"discussing "..forms of psychology that encourage people to worship themselves."

Lsi john 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I pulled the abstract for the first cite:

Abstract As a way of familiarizing himself with one aspect of the human potential movement, the writer attended and participated in an Erhard Seminars Training (est) program. He describes the message, the training method, and his response to the experience.

Given that the article appeared in the Pastoral Psychology, it's not a stretch at all (indeed, it's the only obvious conclusion) to assume that the author of the piece intended it as a psychological evaluation.

For the second cite, I have no problem with a description of the process being "attempting to analyze the est experience", since the author of the piece appears to be seeking out and describing various forms of psychology as religion, and offering an analysis of each program.

For the third quote, the reference may be taken out of a larger context, but I am uncertain in what other ways it might be interpreted since the reference to Est Playing the Game follows hard on the footsteps of the phrase. It seems the author of The Many Faces of Virtue may have spared only a cursory glance to the book, but it is nonetheless referenced and cited properly here. Snuppy 18:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Snuppy, As a fairly new editor, I'm still trying to understand what can be included and what can't, and what should and what shouldn't.

In this case there is both the book est (the subject of this article) and the course est (the subject of the book). This article is about the book, not the course. (The book is about the course).

It would seem more relevant, to me, to know the specific context and content, in which each of these sources referred to the book (this article's subject), rather than providing the information that the sources were 'analyzing the course' and referred to the book.

In your opinion, above, you indicated a level of litmus test being "this additional material does nothing toward advancing the understanding of the subject of the article in question"

I'm not sure I'm wording this well.. but, I'll try: "attempting to analyze the est experience" says that they were analyzing the course (est) and mentioned the book this article is about (est), not that they were analyzing the book itself. Other than article fill, how does that extra information 'advance the understanding of the subject of the article' (the book est) ?

How do we draw a line of distinction between relevance and 'fluff' which isn't relevant and only serves to 'fill' article space? Lsi john 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another way to ask this is.. how are you drawing a distinction between the material you recommended to remove (above) and this extra wording which isn't directly related to the article's subject either.

Oh yea, and thank you for your time. :-} Lsi john 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My only test, since I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, is "does the included material aid my understanding of this subject? Why is the text cited here important to comprehension of the article?" The reason I suggested leaving the citations as they are is that they provide a level of context and insight into why these other authors cited the subject of the article, without creating a deeper level of analysis of those external works that might fall into OR territory. In other words, it's a personal judgment call as to whether the article is helped or hindered by their inclusion or deletion - or, in still other terms, an opinion.

You could strip out all the context of the citations, but that would then read simply like a laundry list of people citing this book. A minimum level of context is necessary in order to understand this book's notability and impact. Snuppy 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Which is more or less what I originally said (or tried to say) above. The material adds fill, without really providing information, and at first glance gives an appearance of notability. Without the extra information, the lack of notability (or at least the incompleteness) of the article is striking. My claim is that, while it would be valuable to include the actual 'textual' references to this book, without those specific references, there is no value (other than filler) to including information about the sources that referenced it.

In the end, as you say, this is a matter of opinion and is subjective. For me, that is important to know. It means that an opinion to remove it, is no less valuable than an opinion to retain it. From my perspective, if something, only vaguely related, must be retained to express notability, then notability overall is in serious question.

Thanks again. Lsi john 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite what I'm saying, or rather, that's a piece of what I'm saying. There are many more articles on Wikipedia that have lesser notability and greater attention devoted to them. As far as I know, this book is notable primarily in that it has been cited; someone who has actually read the book may be able to provide greater insight into its impact or lack of notability. Until such time as someone can provide a better grasp on this book, its primary touchstones are its connections to other material. It is, yes, incomplete as it stands; you're right about that. But it is premature to call the entire existence of this article into question. Snuppy 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And I haven't done that yet. Lsi john 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Snuppy...

Snuppy, thank you for providing a most polite and kindly worded third opinion. I agree with you that some context needs to be given to the cites in order to clarify how they are being used by the authors. I also see your need for further context given to the book itself as well, and will do so once I get ahold of a copy, shortly... Thank you again for your most polite demeanor - it makes for a constructive and pleasant dialogue. Yours, Smee 22:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Further points from Lsi john

I hate to drag him back here, but now you're taking one sentence out of that book and claiming that was the purpose of the book, or the context under which it referenced this est book. But if you're going to insist on the additional wording, we can always ask him to come back. Lsi john 22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I do not know to what you are referring specifically? Provide me with a DIFF or something and I will adjust the text, hopefully to your liking. Smee 22:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

This is OR: "as well as putting it into the context of the human potential movement." unless you have something which says that was his specific goal in that book.

This is OR: "and the way that the trainers emulated Erhard", unless you have something to show he was specifically analyzing the way the trainers emulated Erhard. As far as I can see, that was a comment in the book, not a purpose or goal of the book.

You're a smart guy, you know this already. You know better than to make up unsupported claims. Lsi john 22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• The text is directly supported. All I did was shorten it from the prior version that you did not agree with. It is either quoted directly in the citation itself, or a page number is provided. These are secondary sources, there is no OR here. Please, comments like "You're a smart guy, you know this already. You know better than to make up unsupported text." -- are impolite and not conducive to constructive dialogue. Just discuss what you don't agree with as far as content, please, and we will move forward politely. Smee 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Smee, you are making a direct claim about what the reference material (or author) was doing, or trying to do. That is OR. It's one thing to say that a book called "Psychology" is about psychology, without being too much of a leap, its another to claim that a book was "analyzing the way that the trainers emulated Erhard", which is unsupported from the text you gave, and probably untrue. Lsi john 23:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Similarly, claiming that the book "put it in the context of the .... movement" is OR, unless you have a source that specifically says thats what they were doing. Lsi john 23:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It is not helpful to discuss politely with you, when you use phrases like: "You're a smart guy, you know this already. You know better than to make up unsupported claims." However, the phrase -- "analyzing the way that the trainers emulated Erhard", is supported by the quote in the citation -- "Seminar leaders were trained to resemble as closely as possible both the teaching and personality of Werner Erhard." This is a reputable secondary sourced citation that supports this. Smee 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
      • Is it productive to repeat your objections when I have not repeated the objectionable wording? Lsi john 23:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You are clearly missing the point. I'm not suggesting that the material is inaccurate. I'm suggesting it is being used in an OR manner. The source says that "the trainers emulated Erhard", which does not translate to "Clayton Vitz was attempting to analyze the way the trainers emulated Erhard", which is what you said. Therefore your statement is OR. You have formed a conclusion, and made a statement, that is not true (or at least is not supported by the facts we currently have). Lsi john 23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• What other conclusion could you draw? This is definitely supported by the sourced citation.

1. Source - "Seminar leaders were trained to resemble as closely as possible both the teaching and personality of Werner Erhard. The main goal of the training was to get the participants to "transform their ability to experience living." The key word is experience, since the main thrust is not on new ways to believe or think but on new ways to experience."
2. Article sentence - "Clayton Vitz cited the book in Psychology As Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship, while attempting to analyze the est experience and the way that the trainers emulated Erhard."

• This is not OR, but directly supported by the reputable secondary sourced citation. Smee 23:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
  • I have asked for Snuppy to provide further input on this. Smee 23:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Whee

I was going to try editing the article itself to make sure the statements directly tied into the article, but I couldn't find an elegant solution without devoting a serious amount of time to it, and frankly playing with my son has more appeal to me. However, before I go, I do believe that the quotation from the Vitz article is direct enough that it doesn't violate OR. If you want to find some way to quote that entire sentence without bastardizing the citation, go for it - otherwise, I'm of the opinion that it should remain.

I should also note that the human potential statement is directly referenced in the abstract for Pastoral Psychology, which I quote again here:

Abstract As a way of familiarizing himself with one aspect of the human potential movement, the writer attended and participated in an Erhard Seminars Training (est) program. He describes the message, the training method, and his response to the experience.

So that should settle that question, at least.

Please do try to remain civil, and good luck. Snuppy 23:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again to Snuppy

Thank you Snuppy, for being so polite here and providing input and settling this matter, and for admonishing us all to be civil, which is really needed here. Thank you. Smee 23:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Est: Playing the Game/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*(9) citations, could use expansion, more citations, more info on the lawsuit to stop the book from publication and more citations on that, expansion into subsection. Smee 12:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 09:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)