Talk:Edgar Schein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Low rated as low-importance on the assessment scale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edgar Schein article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.


[edit] Schlein and "cults"

Singling out Schlein's one single passing mention of cults out of his 50 years of work is simply POV pushing. It is false to say, as the article does, that he discusses "destructive cults" (a term he doesnt use). And your adding the sentence "For other individuals that have done more extensive research in the area of cults and new religious movements, see List of cult and new religious movement researchers" is also POV pushing, since this article and this author have nothing to do with cults and new religious movements. I am substituting a more accurate and representative sampling from his work taken from the reference provided. BabyDweezil 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

He has done other research in the field, this is all I have found at the moment. Please do not remove material, as you have consistently done, with respect to your text ban. Thanks. Smee 04:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
I have moved the relevant link back to the "See also" section, with a clarifying caveat. Even if Schein might not be considered directly relevant himself, the other list is certainly of interest to the article, and thus belongs in the See also section. Smee 04:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Smee, you are engaging in pure POV pushing, mischaracterizing this author as having something to do with "cult and new religious movement research" (he does none of that0 and putting in random quotes unrepresentative of his work just because he uses the word "cult." I mean come on. Reverted. Am I going to have to recommend having you banned for this blatant and outrageous POV mongering? BabyDweezil 05:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I will NOT engage you in dialogue on the talk pages if you continue to violate Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks!!! Quoting from that wiki article: Comment on content, not on the contributor. (Emphasis in original). Smee 05:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Please stop continuing to insert irrelevant material into the article simply to push your POV. It is becoming vandalism. BabyDweezil 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
See my comment above. I will not enter into a meaningful dialogue with you on the talk page until you apologize for and cease your Personal Attacks. Thanks. Smee 06:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
"POV pushing" is an objective description of what you are doing with this article. I do apologize if it sounds harsh, it is not meant to be offensive or an attack, but it is a fair description--you are using the article to push a particular POV.BabyDweezil 06:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, see my above comment for clarification on how to discuss and proper demeanor on talk pages. Thanks. Smee 06:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
You are free to demonstrate how this article has anything to do with "cults and new religious movement researchers" if you like. That is the issue at hand. BabyDweezil 06:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate an apology for your most inappropriate Personal Attacks, and violations of your text ban. Smee 06:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
see above for my explanation of my remarks. And you really should stop obsessing about my text ban; it's kinda strange and disturbing. Anytime you wish to discuss the issues relevant to the article, let us know. BabyDweezil 06:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • See above for my request for an apology for your personal attacks - and I am not "obsessing" about your text ban, it is a simple fact that this occurred and that you have been in clear violation of it in multiple instances. Smee 07:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Per above, all i will be discussing with you on this page is improvements to the article. BabyDweezil 13:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more appropriate quote substituted

The current quote in the article is unrepresntative of the source cited, and of Schein's work. A more appropriate section from the source is substituted.BabyDweezil 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "See also" line

Pleas refer to What Wikipedia is not

Please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so see also sections should only include links directly pertaining to the topic of an article and not large general pieces of information loosely connected (or not at all connected) to the subject.(emphasis added)

Edgar Schein is not now and has never been in his 50 years of researching a "cult and new religious movement researcher"; per WP:NOT, this "see also" is being removed. BabyDweezil 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not, but that is not the issue in this case. The article itself is relevant. Numerous "cult and new religious movement researcher"s have cited his work. Smee 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC).