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 of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:JournProjectArticles Books GA‑class 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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Psychology GA‑class 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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

• For Wikipedia editors, if you need to cite this book somewhere, here is the full cite:
• Pressman, Steven (1993). Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 289. ISBN 0-312-09296-2. OCLC 27897209.
• And the code to use - Just change the page number to the specific page, or add {{rp|page number}} immediately next to it with, replacing "page number" with the specific page number or page range from the book:
• {{cite book | last = Pressman | first = Steven | authorlink = Steven Pressman | title = [[Outrageous Betrayal|Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile]] | publisher = [[St. Martin's Press]] | year = 1993 | location = [[New York]] | pages = 289 | isbn = 0-312-09296-2|id=[[OCLC]] [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/27897209 27897209]}}

A recent checkuser case resulted in "confirm" on several users as sockpuppets of each other, that edited articles on closely related topics including Landmark Education, Werner Erhard, Landmark Education litigation, Scientology and Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training, and Werner Erhard and Associates, among others. As a result, several of these users and sockpuppets of each other have been blocked. The checkuser case page is here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Cirt (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2108 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this comment here? None of the users in that case ever edited here. Is it simply that the editor above (Cirt) has an agenda and is looking for an argument? It looks like it from the large amount of editing the they have done here. Kinda weird. Looks like a desire to create controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belladana (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is here so that users can be on the lookout for additional sock puppets that might try to disrupt the page. Jehochman ^Talk 19:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Belladana (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of Barnham (talk · contribs), see blocklog. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On November 9, 2009, at 0433 hours, a Wikipedian undid my much-discussed edits to this article, claiming "violation of RFC". When I reverted "in the light of archived talk-page discussion" the same Wikipedian promptly re-reverted, once again appealing to "violation of RFC" and referred vaguely on my talk-page to "non-consensus edits to the article Outrageous Betrayal". -- As the Wikipedia policy WP:CCC states: '"according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action'. So I call for further discussion on the evolved proposed improvements. Let's return to the point where I last appealed for discussion and answers to queries -- before a fellow-editor arbitrarily declared the matter resolved by the previous RfC (despite ongoing discussion) and effectively closed down discussion as "not productive or constructive" and archived the talk-page. -- Pedant17 (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]