This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Category:Living people
• Category:Researchers of cults and new religious movements

Why were these categories removed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

While Ted Patrick certainly has a checkered past that includes some dark moments, the tone of this article ("he was able to gain the trust") is a little too heavily weighted towards the Church of Scientology's view of Patrick as a dastardly criminal. While he is an ex-con, he was also an early reality TV star. And there were plenty who defended his practices as justifiable even if illegal, given the cultural climate of the 1970s. 67.188.190.216 ( talk) 17:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The most notable deprpogrammer ever. Original article was speedily deleted by user:Pilotguy on 2 Nov. 2007 for allegedly being an attack page. I think was an exaggerated action. Andries 18:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the speedy tag, this is clearly notable and sources exist [1] [2]. The google cache version [3] doesn't look like an attack page. -- arkalochori ^|talk| 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous that it was deleted as No indication of importance/significance. -- arkalochori ^|talk| 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I was going to remove the speedy tag I placed myself, but it wasn't clear to me why the old version (see the Google cache linked above) had been deleted. From a more careful examination, Patrick is certainly notable, but the article will need to be handled very carefully. Michaelbusch 20:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The deletion log says: "23:09, November 1, 2007 Pilotguy (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Ted Patrick" (A7 also an attack page basically" ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Who's the arse-wipe that obscured this page, and why can't it be restored? It was by no means an attack page. The bulk of the page was done by a Patrick fan-boy and the rest was just good old Ted speaking for himself. Things like spiitch impedjamint could have been sdjusted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.173.46 ( talk) 05:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Classy. -- arkalochori ^|talk| 05:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Why is it that a page can eliminated on someone's whim without option to recover? HAd to get the content from a Wikipedia vampire page and paste it in. Now all the links and references are gone and have to be put back one by one manually. 128.227.73.177 14:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It was done unilaterally by an administrator contrary to the proper protocol for deletion, and even the reasons cited, "Attack page" "non-notable," were invalid. All in all, rather disappointing. -- arkalochori ^|talk| 00:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was "Despite a lack of formal education and professional training," removed? He more or less created an industry with no training what so ever. If you hear this man speak, it is shocking that a man of that caliber (so low) can influence as many people as he did. No training, no education, just witches, warlocks and dimwitted "field" experience.

Anyway, the point needs to be noted in some way. ZipaDeeDooDa ( talk) 00:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Patrick's career has been substantially critiqued by quite a number of academics, especially sociologists of religion. Their opinions deserve mention. I would suggest this deserves a section.

The "Publications" section is heavily weighted with a positive bias towards Mr. Patrick. But worthwhile publications that take a negative view of his activities have been written by respectable academics and, for balance, deserve mention. In particular, Bromley and Shupe's "Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare" (1981).

I don't "hang out" on Wikipedia, so this is a passing comment, and if it's the start of a conversation I will not be available to participate. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.139.220.122 ( talk) 12:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The article effectively ends with Mr. Patrick's activities circa 1990 -- twenty years ago. Readers might naturally wonder what Mr. Patrick did afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.139.220.122 ( talk) 12:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:I AM JOHN SMITH: "Because with an incivil edit summary such as "This guy's a dim-witted, inarticulate wack job" I assumed the worst.."

The truth is that this guy is an intellectually deficient, morally corrupt, speech impedimented organized crime boss who preyed on the fears and wallets of scared families. People would literally mortgage their houses to pay exorbitant fees to Patrick and other blood suckers like him. I personally know two people that had large amounts of money stolen (each) by these vampires (not Patrick in those cases). I also personally know someone who was "deprogrammed" by Teddy himself, and was force fed meat and was aggressively sexually "enticed" by a prostitute hired by Patrick for that purpose. The deprogramming was unsuccessful.

But we can't say all that on Wikipedia. My "dim-witted, inarticulate wack job" comment was quite mild. ZipaDeeDooDa ( talk) 03:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness you didn't say all that on Wikipedia.  :-) Rumiton ( talk) 07:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess this cleared a few of his BTs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.206.242 ( talk) 20:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)