User talk:DrSocPsych

Welcome

Hello DrSocPsych and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Getting Started First steps • FAQ • Article creation wizard Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Teahouse • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DrSocPsych. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Anne Delong (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DrSocPsych. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by John from Idegon (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hi

I've seen you at a few of the NRM pages, generally so far as I can remember those which were more prominently called "cults" during the anticult movement.Believe me, it's good to see anyone editing those pages, particularly someone who seems to have some degree of knowledge of the topics. Some years ago, when the topic area got a bit more of its development and attention, there were, basically, three editors involved seriously with the related content. Of those three, I think I am the only one still around editing it much, although the others are still active in general.

Of the lot, the Erhard related pages are probably the most problematic, because of the numerous name changes and the comparative lack of independent coverage, partially, possibly, related to it being for-profit. User:Astynax has done some good work in the related field, and is basically from what I've known of him one of the better researchers we have, but there are other editors whose ties to the field can sometimes create problems.

I think that there are probably a few other editors who might know the field somewhat, like User:Liz, but, unfortunately, other than Scientology and Falun Gong, I tend to think that the Erhard field, and the related topics in the field of large group awareness training, both because of the comparative lack of study and the number of somewhat devout POV pushing supporters.

I think, maybe, next week, we might be trying to get together some editors to maybe either take part in some form of mediation, or precursors to that, or, if nothing else, to try to figure out which topics need to be covered somewhere in the related articles, and what content should go in which article.

If you were to wish to take part in those discussions, I think your input would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Let me know. DrSocPsych (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unification church page

Regarding what you said about Kitfoxxe and the Moonie pages, should we bring this to an admin? I'm not confident enough in how Wikipedia works to try anything drastic, but if this as serious as you say it is then we definitely need to bring this to someone's attention. Cheers Sarcastic Bob (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcastic Bob, I don't think it's drastic to eliminate material that sounds like a Unification Church brochure and add important material from reliable sources that creates a picture closer to the scholarly and public depiction of the organization, even if the Unification Church members don't like it. The same goes for the Sun Myung Moon article. Be BOLD. DrSocPsych (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]