Talk:Michael Langone

message: Cut from intro paragraph:
:... specialises in research about cultic groups and psychological manipulation. 
Removed, because the article does not mention any of his research. He has condemned cults as manipulative, citing the research of others. But where is his own research? --Uncle Ed 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give me some time and I will add his research.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: cut:
:, editor of the journal Cultic Studies Review.
No evidence that this is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It's just a blog, near as I can tell. --Uncle Ed 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most certainly not a "blog", it was around long before blogs existed.  Numerous academics regularly publish in it.  Off the top of my head I don't know if it has peer review, but does not have to in order to be classified as a "journal".  Smeelgova 19:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's an online journal. Good catch, and have a great weekend! ^_^ --Uncle Ed 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, you too!  Smeelgova 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Journal

message: Thanks for the cites, TalkAbout.  Hope you don't mind that I edited them a bit. Tanaats 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tanaats, Not at all...cooperation leads to progress.PEACETalkAbout 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good cites 

message: I think that one of the major players in the secular anti-cult movement qualifies as being notable... Zambelo; talk 17:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note.  I put on the notability tag and then removed it when 3 or 4 books were added as secondary sources.  I don't know about the requirement that they have covered him in depth, or substantially, or whatever.  That is often not so strictly enforced here. (A number of brief mentions in good sources usually works.) I don't now question that he is important enough for an article. BayShrimp (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not notice that the same person placed and removed the notability tag. Per your note here, I have self-reverted my re-addition of the tag. My apologies. LHMask me a question 13:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. BayShrimp (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: The AFD was keep but AFDs do not handle redirections. The person may be notable in the context of the association he leads, hence the redirect. -  Cwobeel (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand AFD and the fact it closed as Keep and not redirect. The subject meets GNG and thus the article can stand alone - do not continue violate policy by blanking and redirecting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

text: @Cwobeel, I understand you were unhappy with the close and asked how to contest the decision . But this is not the way to do it. Redirect is a possible result of an AFD. I would suggest you discuss the redirect here, take the AFD to WP:DRV, or, at some point in the future renominate the article for AFD but do not try and circumvent the process. I understand that you strongly opposed to the subject for some reason but really, work within the system please. JodyB talk 12:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  See discussion on merge below. -  Cwobeel (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I applaud your decision to seek an in-process resolution. I'll not be commenting either way but I am confident the system will allow this to work out for the best. Cheers! JodyB talk 02:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Too bad - the subject meets GNG, the article does not need to be merged and plenty of more sources about Langone exist. Stop your disruptive editing immediately, you have repeatedly blanked and redirected the page after the AFD closed as keep and now you are actively attempting to remove it again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you are disrupting. A merge discussion is 100% kosher. -  Cwobeel (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your argument has failed, your repeated blanking and redirecting is in violation of policy and there is no need or logical requirement that would support a benefit of a merge. You cannot explain how merging would better Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, that is easy: This person wrote two books and is the director of a non-profit. The content in this article can be easily merged International Cultic Studies Association, as there are just a couple of sources about this person. -  Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Spare me your idle banter, you act as if paper is outmoded and things do not matter if they are not immediately in the article. There is something to be said about being repeatedly consulted and covered in various publications. I just don't have access to the Gale part for right now, but the dozens of instances and citations certainly establish GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

text:  Lalich and Langone developed the definition of cults that are commonly cited and used, and that was years ago. Langone founded Cultic Studies Journal, but edits Cultic Studies Review - both of which are non-trivial. Langone's writings and influence are connected, but enough exists that a sizable article can be created and filled out. Though I'm not going to go an do any public record digging for something as trivial as a birth date... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Were did you pull that from? I checked in multiple sources and there is very little about him from secondary sources. Very, very little. -  Cwobeel (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

text:  And look at the very poor state of Janja Lalich. Tagged since Oct 2014. -  Cwobeel (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no deadline and I question how you've arrived at the "very, very little" part considering this seems to mean "Google" and Google is horrendous at that era. Not everything is online and both his roles there provide a wealth of sources upon which to draw material from on the basis of thoughts and theory as well as simple routine biographical information. As for prominence and being an expert used in the media - well... there are dozens of such citations to be made. Many minor, some better, but Langone is notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The guys is only notable for writing two books and for being the principal of a minor non-profit. Not notable at all. -  Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  We know your point and your intention - but glossing over an entire person's career and work does not make it "non-existent". You are the only editor I've ever seen to repeatedly edit war clearly false information over and over again. I find your behavior reprehensible because you feign ignorance and repeatedly remove citations calling them "not notable" when that is disruptive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, what an example of how to conduct a discussion. I think you need to take a deep breath and stop edit warring yourself. -  Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

text:  and your use of the royal "we"   is very telling. -  Cwobeel (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: I have placed a  on the article, for reasons explained in the AFD, which was no consensus to delete but still had substantial comments about lack of notability due to lack of third-party sources. So the article can remain as a redirect after useful content is merged to  International Cultic Studies Association. -  Cwobeel (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad - the subject meets GNG, the article does not need to be merged and plenty of more sources about Langone exist. Stop your disruptive editing immediately, you have repeatedly blanked and redirected the page after the AFD closed as keep and now you are actively attempting to remove it again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you are disrupting. A merge discussion is 100% kosher. -  Cwobeel (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your argument has failed, your repeated blanking and redirecting is in violation of policy and there is no need or logical requirement that would support a benefit of a merge. You cannot explain how merging would better Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, that is easy: This person wrote two books and is the director of a non-profit. The content in this article can be easily merged International Cultic Studies Association, as there are just a couple of sources about this person. -  Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Spare me your idle banter, you act as if paper is outmoded and things do not matter if they are not immediately in the article. There is something to be said about being repeatedly consulted and covered in various publications. I just don't have access to the Gale part for right now, but the dozens of instances and citations certainly establish GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

text:  Lalich and Langone developed the definition of cults that are commonly cited and used, and that was years ago. Langone founded Cultic Studies Journal, but edits Cultic Studies Review - both of which are non-trivial. Langone's writings and influence are connected, but enough exists that a sizable article can be created and filled out. Though I'm not going to go an do any public record digging for something as trivial as a birth date... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Were did you pull that from? I checked in multiple sources and there is very little about him from secondary sources. Very, very little. -  Cwobeel (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

text:  And look at the very poor state of Janja Lalich. Tagged since Oct 2014. -  Cwobeel (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no deadline and I question how you've arrived at the "very, very little" part considering this seems to mean "Google" and Google is horrendous at that era. Not everything is online and both his roles there provide a wealth of sources upon which to draw material from on the basis of thoughts and theory as well as simple routine biographical information. As for prominence and being an expert used in the media - well... there are dozens of such citations to be made. Many minor, some better, but Langone is notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The guys is only notable for writing two books and for being the principal of a minor non-profit. Not notable at all. -  Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  We know your point and your intention - but glossing over an entire person's career and work does not make it "non-existent". You are the only editor I've ever seen to repeatedly edit war clearly false information over and over again. I find your behavior reprehensible because you feign ignorance and repeatedly remove citations calling them "not notable" when that is disruptive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, what an example of how to conduct a discussion. I think you need to take a deep breath and stop edit warring yourself. -  Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

text:  and your use of the royal "we"   is very telling. -  Cwobeel (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I spent some time digging through Google books and found just a handful of sources that comment on Langone's work. We have two books that he wrote and a couple of articles in some journals, but there is little about him, or his work written by third parties. To comply with NPOV we need secondary sources that discuss the person and his work, and we can't relay just on what this person wrote himself, or what the organization he leads writes about him. -  Cwobeel (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not troll. You are aware of WP:BLP and you know better then to do the edits you have been doing. Playing ignorant and making false statements to try and get this article deleted is disruptive. Langone's work is cited in over 90 different international publications and the citation and use by others shows Langone's status. Stop making false statements, deleting content and inserting unacceptable POV - this is your final warning on this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please avoid personal attacks. You keep doing this, and it is not useful. -  Cwobeel (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  And now, please explain why are you deleting the material that was added based on reliable sources. Please consider stopping edit warring as you did here , and here . -  Cwobeel (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: In 1936,the Physical Review rejected Einstein's paper on gravitational waves as being nonsense.  Many authors collect hundreds or rejection slips - Mangone is no way an Einstein, but stressing rejection slips is silly.     Find a single source instead of individual rejections - I knew major scientists who had dozens of them. Collect (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very poor analogy comparing Albert Einstein to Langone... But in any case, in Einstein's article we report his rejected paper, see Albert_Einstein#Photons_and_energy_quanta. -  Cwobeel (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

text: It looks like we're both (see my query below) talking about the same thing (the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control).  What do you think is the best way to bring this in?  We're not talking about a theory submitted and rejected, but rather a group of people who have created a new field and had their research methods and practices found to be unscientific and without rigor.  The publications they were paid to create were discarded.  Most of them (Langone included) went on to publish the theories anyway, while ignoring the serious flaws pointed out by their peers in the APA. Langone and others' only claims to notability come from this subject, so it's very relevant here. We just need to find the best way to present it. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes, agree. -  Cwobeel (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Find a secondary reliable source asserting that the rejections per se were significant.  Just like every other BLP.   Simple. Collect (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is what the source provided is. Did you check the sources? -  Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

text:  I added a few secondary sources in the talk section below.  Take a look if you get a chance? --Tgeairn (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  rejection slips