Talk:Cult

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4

Contradicting definitions of "sect" and "cult"

The contradiction can be deduced by using the Raelian Movement as an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect gives several definitions of what a sect is:

1) "sects claim to be authentic purged, refurbished version of the faith from which they split" and "sects have, in contrast to churches, a high degree of tension with the surrounding society", in this case, the Raelian Movement is not a sect, because only one, not both, of the criteria is met.

Result-

Sect (ex. Early Protestantism): No

2) sectarianism "a worldview that emphasizes the unique legitimacy of believers' creed and practices and that heightens tension with the larger society by engaging in boundary-maintaining practices.", so the Raelian Movement is sectarian in the sense that it possesses a trait shared by revolutionary movements such as the Civil Rights Movements of 19th and 20th century America.

Result-

Sectarian (ex. Martin Luther King, KKK, Skull and Bones, George Washington etc.): Yes

3) "A religious or political cult, by contrast, also has a high degree of tension with the surrounding society, but its beliefs are, within the context of that society, new and innovative." The Raelian Movement fits this. "Whereas the cult is able to enforce its norms and ideas against members" The Raelian Movement does not fit this since it lacks a true dictatorial leadership. As you can see, this definition is able to contradict itself in the case the Raelian Movement - making it an invalid definition. "a sect normally doesn't strictly have "members" with definite obligations, only followers, sympathisers, supporters or believers." This fits the Raelian Movement, as well as a plethora of apparently normal organizations which do not push their members to do exact things.

Result-

Cult (ex. Antique Mormon Polygamous sect, KKK, Nazism etc.): No

Sect (ex. Martin Luther King etc., Gandhi's Movement): Yes

4) "The English sociologist Roy Wallis[6] argues that a sect is characterized by “epistemological authoritarianism”: sects possess some authoritative locus for the legitimate attribution of heresy." This applies for the Raelian Movement, however, the Raelian Movement has no problem with any heresy as long as it does not violate the fundamentals, such as peace, love, and non-violence. "According to Wallis, “sects lay a claim to possess unique and privileged access to the truth or salvation" The Raelian Movement fits this, but salvation only in the case that the world "fails", though such a failure is something Raelians actively want to prevent - hence their disapproval of nuclear weapons and of war in general. "and “their committed adherents typically regard all those outside the confines of the collectivity as 'in error'”." The Raelian Movement does not fit this as they acknolwedge the greater actions of those who do not adhere to them to be nevertheless deserving of eternal life, perhaps more than they are individually (those people are given the title of Honorary Guide of the Raelian Movement, even if they have no idea of Raelians at all). Again we see the problem with using only one criteria to establish whether the Raelian Movement is a sect when more than one must be met. "He contrasts this with a cult that he described as characterized by “epistemological individualism” by which he means that “the cult has no clear locus of final authority beyond the individual member.”" In this case, Raelism fits, because the final authority is not Rael, but the individual, because Rael is not a dictator. Megachurches fit this as well, since Christian priests of this day and age are by no means dictators, and neither are guardians at Christian Retreats or teachers who "assign" activities to pupils. But the fact that one fits the criteria does not make one a cult. That is: If Z does A, and B does A, does that mean that Z is B? Not necessarily. It couldn't be objectively determined unless if it was assumed that only one (category of) thing did A. If this were the definition of cult, you would have the final say (only if you belonged to a cult); now isn't that preferrable than having someone else control you as in a sect per Roy Wallis definition? What a joke. ;)

Result-

Cult (ex. Libertarian): Yes

Sect (ex. Populist): No

Definitions 3 and 4 are in direct contradiction with each other. By accepting both definitions, it is harder to distinguish a cult from a sect. Do members of a cult need authority for a final word? #3 says yes, #4 says no. Does a sect have individuals with their own choice? #3 says yes, #4 says no. Most people would think that #3 is a better definition than #4. In both definitions, cults and sects are exculsive from each other (i.e. a cult cannot be a sect and a sect cannot be cult (an analogue to this is: red cannot be orange and orange cannot be red, but both are colors). There be some who would disagree with this and say that a cult is a type of sect (analogue: turquiose is a type of blue). As you can see, provided that there be a definition, or a set of non-contradicting definitions, of sect which can be agreed upon (which may not be the case), one must define the Raelian Movement before calling it a sect. Why not call it a sect? Sure, as long as it is stated what that label indicates exactly.Kmarinas86 05:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask that this discussion be moved from my user talk page to somewhere else? -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead - I don't know where to put it.Kmarinas86 07:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The above was taken from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar#Contradicting_definitions_of_.22sect.22_and_.22cult.22 Kmarinas86 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cults and literature

Someone removed an entire paragraph from the Cults and NRMs in Literature section on grounds that he or she thought it dealt with "two-bit" figures who are noteworthy only as cult leaders not as literary figures. This is curious, since the article is about cults and deals with literature only in relation to cults--and since I had explicitly stated that the role of the persons cited was a minor one in literature. Removing the paragraph was apparently an emotionally based act. If the person who did so is a former cult victim I can sympathize with his or her feelings, but the fact is that several purported cult leaders have produced noteworthy works either in genre or mainstream literature. For instance, no one could write an adequate article on the modern horror genre without paying attention to Hubbard's Fear (celebrated in a recent Johnnie Depp movie). Not all the writers listed in the paragraph have written anything that will last, and some who wrote significant things also wrote drek as well. But I stand by this paragraph as containing information of value for the study and understanding of cults and the persons who run them.--Dking (Dennis King), 12 August 2006.

Cults in Literature

In reviewing the article, I fail to understand the value of the large section regarding literature's view of cults. I think this could be an article in and of itself, but it certainly does not belong in an article that attempts to describe cults from both an academic and religious viewpoint. I am still perplexed that it was even written. I would like other thoughts as to why this section is of value. Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose to summarize it in this article and have the extensive treatment in a new separate article. Andries 18:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone suggested on this discussion page several months ago that the topics of cults and literature should be included in this article. I thought it was a good idea, so I responded. I fail to see anything perplexing and valueless about the topic, since many, many works of literature have been published about cults and a large percentage of so-called cult leaders are, among other things, writers. I think it should stay in this article for the time being. Storm Rider says it doesn't belong because the article is exclusively concerned with describing cults from "an academic and religious viewpoint." But whoever (besides Storm Rider) ever decided that these are the only two viewpoints that should be included? First, not all cults are religious, and second, not all information and analysis of cults comes from academia (if you restrict it to the latter, then all works by purported cult members defending their organizations, all works by ex-members or children who grew up in purported cults, and all other sources of nonacademic information could not be cited without first being filtered through professors of religious history who may or may not be qualified to do such vetting). I am not aware of any other topic of popular concern on wikipedia where such a restriction has been placed regarding which angles of approach to a topic can or cannot be used.--Dking (Dennis King), 8 Aug 2006.

Scientology not a "doomsday cult"

Scientology was recently added to the list of doomsday cults. I removed it, because there is no evidence that Scientology, an organization that has been around for over 50 years, has ever contemplated, planned or carried out mass suicides, terrorist acts, or anything remotely similar. When Scientology gets angry, it files a lawsuit. Perhaps the person who added this group to the list was confused by a poorly worded definition in which doomsday cults were vaguely described as groups that are a threat to the well being of their followers (a characterization that could be applied to just about any organization, whether cultic or mainstream, under certain circumstances). I changed "threat" to "extreme threat" and added "to the lives" (not just the wellbeing) of followers in hopes this will prevent further inappropriate additions to the list.--Dking (Dennis King), 26 Aug 2006.

Hare Krishnas

I restored the statement that one faction of the Hare Krishna movement (which opposes the claims to guru status made by leaders of various temples) has written with critical insight on the movement's history. To say that the entire movement manifests this type of critical thinking is not true, nor is it true that the Hare Krishna movement as a whole is "completely mainstream," which the previous editor maintained in explaining the edit.--28 Aug 2006

On what basis? Maybe it sounds better to you to say "faction of", but what is more mainstream than the ISKCON Communications Journal posted on ISKCON.Com?? We are talking ISKCON (International Society for Krsna Consciousness) here. It's ISKCON's own academic journal on ISKCON's own website! The ICJ was received and was openly available in every temple in North America and Europe. Give some credible reference for your artificial “faction of” spin. Plausible sounding to your ear doesn't cut it.

There are several links to register yourself on WikiPedia. I can point them out if you are having trouble figuring it out. Jiva Goswami 05:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ABCDEF

Anyone think this might be of some value?

Reflecting the academic literature accurately

10 years ago I did almost all the work necessary to write an academic research paper on cults and brainwashing, but it got pushed to the back burner, and at this point I would have to update it to get it published. Perhaps things have changed in the last 10 years, but what I found certainly bears on the references in this article that are more than 10 years old, which is most of them.

I expected to find two sides, both having studied cults thoroughly to support their views, both with substantial empirical evidence to back up their arguments either supporting or opposing the brainwashing / mind control theories as applied to cults. After a comprehensive review, what I found surprised me. There were indeed two sides, both with strong claims (though the anti-cult claims were far more strident). Ironically, empirical studies of cults by supporters of brainwashing / mind control theories were scant. There were a few clinical case-studies and a few small research studies, both kinds more typically than not with significant methodological problems. Most of the theories out there regarding brainwashing or mind control, hadn't, at least at that time, been connected empirically to cults, but were applied to cults speculatively.

By contrast, researchers who were not convinced by brainwashing / mind control theories (most typically sociologists of religion) were the ones who had done large, high-quality, empirical studies, and concluded as a result that the brainwashing / mind control theories didn't fit. The fact that some of these researchers who were very neutral are now called cult apologists is amusing.

Many in the brainwashing camp seemed to have the cart before the horse: convinced of the brainwashing / mind control theories, they went looking for evidence. Of course, some of them were dedicated anti-cultists, which is not the most conducive starting point for scientific research. The large, high-quality, empirical studies were published in respected, peer-reviewed journals. Many of the cult brainwashing studies were published in lower-quality journals such as the Cultic Studies Journal, which has a strong anti-cult bias, and since my university library (the largest in the state) did not subscribe, I had to get it through inter-library loan.

I realize this is a controversial topic on which NPOV is difficult, but it seems to me that the strongest bias that remains in this article is on the anti-cult side. When I got to the Cult#Study_of_cults section I felt some responsibility to do some editing. Anti-cultists should realize that when they go overboard, they allow their adversaries to cry foul. They would accomplish their goals better by resisting the temptation to give weight to low-grade social science and exaggerated claims, and let accurate descriptions speak for themselves. -DoctorW 03:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

===As someone who has labored over the past year to make this article more even-handed and to give so-called cults the benefit of the doubt, I don't agree with DoctorW's criticisms. Indeed, his use of demeaning terms such as "brainwashing camp" and "dedicated anti-cultists" to refer to those he disagrees with make one question the scientific objectivity he professes. He suggests that "sociologists of religion" and "large, high-quality empirical studies" have found that cult members are basically free agents. But taking Potemkin Village tours of cult communities or conducting opinion polls of cult members doesn't really establish anything. One weakness is that the professors who give cults a clean bill of health don't know how to follow the money trail and thus miss the main point in many (but not all) so-called cults--that they are money-machines for the organization's leadership. The posture of so-called neutrality indeed prohibits some scholars from even daring to ask the key questions of where does the money come from and where, or to whom, does it go? Also, this posture prohibits them from listening, really listening, to what disaffected cult members have to say. Thousands of such people have come forward over the years with accounts that are very different from each other in detail but in their broad outlines suggest that the same general principles of psychological manipulation, "mind control," and economic and/or other forms of exploitation are operative within so-called cults. Are these witnesses merely making it all up? Why is it that journalists and law enforcement are so often able to verify the charges? Why is it that cults almost never win libel suits against their critics? Why is it that so many cult leaders and their disciples have ended up in jail or been forced to flee the country to avoid prosecution? -- dking (Dennis King), 28 July 2006. P.S. The leading figure in DoctorW's camp is J. Gordon Melton, who is not a "sociologist" but rather has a Ph.D. in the History and Literature of Religions. Many others in that camp are also religious scholars rather than social scientists. I point this out not to suggest that their work is illegitimate but merely to take issue with DoctorW's false dichotomy of social scientists versus other students of cults.

===In the above comments I put the term "mind control" in quotes because I, like DoctorW, believe it is an unsatisfactory term as used in common discourse about cults. It simplistically lumps together processes of indoctrination-education, social conformity, inner-group patronage, organizational discipline, and the attractiveness of the theology or ideology of the particular group, and suggests that the indoctrination process is always the central thing. Since it is used only in reference to cults, it obscures the fact that the same processes go on in mainstream organizations. This makes it more difficult to focus on comparing how the processes work in cults and mainstream organizations, which might help us discern better what is unique about cults and other high-commitment sects. The thinking of people in such groups is undoubtedly focussed and directed to a higher degree than in most mainstream groups, but this wouldn't last very long without the surrounding social and organizational milieu and (in some cases) the prestige of a living or deceased founder and his or her teachings.--Dking (Dennis King)--1 August 2006

Notice what Dking has said above. He claims to be "even-handed". He immediately launches into an attack on my use of phrases such as "brainwashing camp" and "dedicated anti-cultists", which he says are "demeaning terms". It is obvious to anyone who actually reviewed the literature (at least at the time I did) that those who believe in brainwashing have "taken sides" - separated themselves into a "camp" if you will, and that the most prolific authors on that "side" are dedicated to their anti-cult efforts. It's hard to believe that any knowledgeable person would take issue with the fact that, for example, Michael Langone is not anti-cult or that he is not dedicated to arguing for that position. Certainly there are anti-cult authors who are good social scientists and take a strictly objective approach to the best of their ability, but these were few among those who published articles and books applying the brainwashing model to cults (at the time I reveiwed the literature).

But lets suppose Dking is right and that putting people in "camps" is "demeaning". We want the article to reflect objective reality, right? Dking goes on to rant against sociologists of religion and their "posture of so-called neutrality" (which, inexplicably, "prohibits them from listening, really listening, to what disaffected cult members have to say"). He dismisses the "large, high-quality empirical studies" as "Potemkin Village tours". Then he puts me in their "camp"!

Apparently, J. Gordon Melton is the "leader" of my "camp". Now I'm guessing he qualifies as the leader because he made such a collosal mistake in defending the Aum Shinrikyo cult (which I learned about here on Wikipedia), making him an easy target for anti-cultists. I do remember his name from my research, and I am familiar with his massive and unparalleled Encyclopedia of American Religions, but otherwise I don't remember any religion professors who did large empirical studies. But apparently, sociologists of religion are the minority in "my camp".DoctorW 18:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is not demeaning to identify people as being part of a "camp" (or "school of thought" or "movement"). I was criticized several months ago by an ANTI-cult editor on this article who objected to my affirming the existence and influence of an international "anti-cult" movement (I did so to make the point that it is unfair to regard cults as paranoid simply because they regard themselves as being the target of opponents). But it depends on the language you use. To call the anti-cult movement the "brainwashing camp" IS demeaning, since by DoctorW's own admission many social scientists who are strongly critical of cults do not use a model descended from the old brainwashing model. Furthermore, most anti-cult activists and therapists no longer use the term "brainwashing." As I pointed out above I believe the term "mind control" (which is NOT the same thing as brainwashing) is also an oversimplification even though the result of life in a high commitment group may be that one's life and thinking is tightly controlled by the group's leadership whether or not the group is a cult.

I did not go on a "rant" against "sociologists of religion"; I pointed out the FACT that the camp among academics that is sympathetic to cults does not follow the money trail and does not take seriously the complaints of ex-cult members. As to Potemkin Villages, any sociologist who goes to study a cult without inquiring about where the money comes from and where it goes is basically taking a Potemkin Village tour whether the cult itself intends it or not. (And let me say I think there are many new religious movements and small religious or political sects that would be more than happy to show their books to outsiders--these groups have nothing to hide. What concerns me are the hard-core organizations led by sociopathic or extreme-narcissist personalities that DO function as racketeering enterprises.)

Finally, I did not say Melton was the "leader" of DoctorW's camp but the "leading figure." I meant leading figure in an academic sense among those in all fields of scholarly or social scientific study who tend to be sympathetic to cults. This has nothing to with his position on the sarin gas cult. It has to do with the status of his encyclopedia and other writings (which on explicating the doctrines of cults are really quite good) and the fact that he is by far the best known figure in his "camp."--Dking6 October 2006 P.S. For the record, I did not claim that I was "even-handed" but merely that I have tried to make this article "more even-handed."--Dking 03:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Dking's assessment of Melton's work. Melton's descriptions of beliefs and practices of religious groups are generally quite good, but his blunder regarding Aum Shinrikyo is symptomatic for his flawed methodoloy: he seems to assume that apostates in general are unreliable and that cults suffer from unfair and exaggerated persecution, while not doing the case by case research on claims regarding individual groups. On the other hand, he claims that he has studied the accusations regarding Ramtha extensively, but he does not explain in detail how he has refuted them, so I find it unconvincing. He does however describe that the generalizations/prejudices regarding his methodology. On the other hand, I do not deny of course, that untrue accusation and unfair persecution does exist, esp. in the 1970s and 1980s and again esp. in the USA. But it seems that Melton's current research generalizes too much from that time and from the USA. Andries 10:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion or my opinion of Melton are of no consequence to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That Hideous Strength

Kudos to whoever put this novel into the Cults and Literature section! I have changed the reference to NICE being a "Satanic cult" since whatever hints of Satan that exist in the novel are somewhat indirect and mixed with elaborate science-fantasy and neo-Platonist conceptions. In my own brief elaboration of the paragraph I don't attempt to deal with these supernatural elements, since these are dealt with in the wikipedia article on Lewis' book. However, someone might want to add a phrase about the fallen creatures from another planet for the sake of accuracy.--Dking (Dennis King), 7 October 2006

In Wikipedia we do not add our own opinions or our own reviews of books. We can only include material in articles if that material was published by a reliable source. See [WP:RS]]. Unless a reliable source is found in which a review of these books is presented, that material will be mercilessly deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a review. I was correcting the impression that That Hideous Strength (THS) was part of the Satanic cult subgenre. It is obvious from the text of the book that NICE is presented as something other than a conventional Satanic cult. That it embodies Lewis' concept of the "inner ring" is well known and I will provide a citation on this. I will look for a citation on the wife also; it would be good to keep this since THS really does represent a break with the convention of the helpless woman being rescued as in Riders of the Purple Sage. Please lower the tone of your talk about merciless deletions. This article discussion page has been relatively free of that type of hostile atmosphere for a long time now, and I hope we don't go back to it.--Dking, 7 Oct. 2006

"Mercilessly deleted" is not hostile. Read the note at the bottom of this page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Harrison's Vision of Glory

I restored the sentence about this classic book that was removed without explanation (along with another mention of the Watchtower Society) apparently by a member of the society. I doubt this was done as part of any policy, since it is not this organization's style to get involved in fights with outsiders. Neither of the sentences deleted could be regarded as attacks on the beliefs or practices of the JWs; they were statements of fact made in the context of larger points unrelated specifically to the JWs. Harrison's book was cited as an example of how persons raised in purported cults have contributed to the public debate on this subject. To think that the JWs can't be mentioned in the context of the debate over cults is absurd, since they have been a primary target of the Christian countercult movement (an important element in this debate) for almost half a century, and the largest and most vocal ex-member (or "apostate") support movement in the United States is that of ex-Watchtower Society people who have generated a large body of writings regarding both personal experiences and theology/Bible interpretation. The critics of the Watchtower Society may be right, may be wrong, or may be exaggerating, but you can't pretend they don't exist.--Dking (Dennis King), 7 October 2006

You may need to become familiar with our content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am unsure what you mean. The citation of Harrison in the cult article is surely not a POV issue. It was restoration of a factual example that had been removed without explanation. As to what I said in the paragraph above, that is for discussion only--and yet even there I don't see anything that would raise a POV issue.--Dking, 7 October 2006

Please sign with four tildes: ~~~~ This will autimatically add a time stamp and a link to your userpage. It would be best if you register for a username, if you intend to contribute in an ongoing fashion. Taking time to learn the content policies will avoid a lot of back and forth and make your edits better. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And yes, material that is added to this or any other article, that is just the editor's opinion, or an editor's review of a book, an essay, editolriazing, comment, or any other type of similar original research, will be deleted from the article, if no supporting sources are forthcoming. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am referring specifcally to these sections tagged as lacking references, in particular the whole section "Cults and NRMs in literature". Unless sources are provided within a few days, that text will be moved to the talk page, and when sources found for that material, it can be then put back. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

References

What's with the in-text references in this article? You click them, and they don't take you to the reference list. The numbering is also messed-up. BenC7 04:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cult's in Literature

Should someone add Lovecraftian cults to this? I've also heard of a real cult based of his writings. BanditmanEXE

Great idea. Gothicus cultus. Go for it.--Dking 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Who studies cults

DoctorW was right that this section was a bit of a mess, and did a good job of cleaning out some sloppy formulations. In doing so, he/she tended to overuse the term "anti-cult" (it should be obvious from the Journal of Cultic Studies name which side of the debate it's on) and I tried to use some more varied phrasing where necessary to make the same point. DoctorW's cleanup also revealed that the nonacademic literature on cults had not been accurately described and I took a stab at fixing this. Obviously footnotes are needed. However, I invite DoctorW to first go back over it once again. Sometimes it takes several runs of the steamroller to get a road or a tennis court into proper shape.--Dking 00:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cults & NRM in literature

This seems to be a growing phenomena in WIKI articles; editors who feel there is some value to summarize the way literature or TV portrays individuals, groups, or organizations. I find the whole section unworthy of the article. How on earth does Twain's opinion have any value to an academic article? Zane Grey? Please give me respite. These people are not specialists in the field, rather they are the equivalent of reading "People" magazine or "The National Enquirer" regarding world events. Would it be possible to simply delete the whole section? Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It certainly takes too much space in this article, but also in the article Jonestown. May be it can all be moved to Cults and new religious movements in fiction, art and popular culture. Andries 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to trust Andries opinion on this, especially since moving the article will make it possible for people to add stuff about how cults are treated in film, TV, etc. However, I think the title should be "Cults and new religious movements in literature..." (not just fiction) because the treatment includes or could include references to purported cult leaders who are poets, travel writers, pamphleteers, religious tract writers, popular theorists on a number of subjects, and writers of visionary works such as the Book of Mormon. All of these things are regarded by literary historians as a part of "literature" (see for instance Parrington's Main Currents in American Thought). As to Storm Rider, he persists in his view that the only people whose views should be expressed are religious scholars. Mark Twain, the greatest of American writers, doesn't have anything worthwhile to say? Dostoevsky, author of The Possessed (about a political cult)? C.S. Lewis? Storm Rider is not only being ridiculous, but also hypocritical. Click on his Wiki site and you'll see a quote from C.S. Lewis on faith. Lewis can be quoted on faith but not on an issue of comparative religious scholarship?--Dking 21:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Dking, I had a stronger reaction to Zane Grey being listed. I did not cite the others you cited above, except for Twain. The two I cited are not specialists, which you would have to admit. Is there value in citing the opinions of great individuals outside of their expertise? I fall on the side of, thanks for sharing but I would prefer to hear from someone who has studied the field. I don't have a preference regarding their religious background as you seem to imply. Much of this borders on violating the guidelines against WP:Cruft.

Also, Dking, I don't recall interacting with you much. I am puzzeled by the personal attacks you have made. Frankly, you do not have a clue who I am or my full range of interests or my expertise. I will caution you to use good faith in your dealings with other editors. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear. I never presented Zane Grey as an expert on cults. I presented his book as an example of popular literature about cults. Since it is one of the great bestsellers of American fiction, surely one could not say that it was insignificant in molding public opinion on the Mormons, who were regarded in earlier decades in much the same way as today's cults are. (And surely, by any reasonable standard the study of public opinion regarding and public reaction to cults should be part of an encyclopedia article on cults.) I thought that I was very careful to make clear that Grey and Conan Doyle's novels with Mormon villains should not be taken too seriously as a reflection of Mormon reality then or now. (The transformation of the heroine's psychology is of interest, but chiefly in a generic sense common to many people who break with cultic and other intense religious backgrounds.) Perhaps the section should be reorganized to present the work of "serious" writers such as Lewis, Dostoevsky, Cather and Twain in one spot and popular fiction writers (such as Grey and A.E.W. Mason) in another. I'd be happy to do this once the cults and literature topic finds its final home.--Dking 03:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

D, I have a particular dislike of articles having todays's media viewpoint mentioned. An example would be some of the cartoon shows (for adults) that have commented on society or church groups. I think that hypersensitivity jaded my comment. I was not aware of who wrote the section or had edited it recently. None of my comments should be construed as a personal affront to you or anyone else. But, to be truthful, I still would be uncomfortable with its inclusion in this article. I wonder if there is enough to make a separate article? Regardless, it is not such a significant issue that I will do more than just mention here. If others, a majority, feel similarly additional editing could be done. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you that coverage of cartoons on cults would be descending into trivia unless done from a psychohistorical perspective to show how fear of cults reflects underlying mass anxieties (but that would not be eligible for inclusion here since psychohistorians who study cartoons and similar pop-culture items have not published on public reaction to cults). My apologies if I offended you in any way. I agree that all this Cult-urkampf be placed in a separate article as per Andries's suggestion.--Dking 19:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge from cult debate

Jossi, merge unreferenced contents from the article cult debate into this article. I see no merit in adding more unreferenced biased contents to this article and I will delete all of this. References had already been requested long ago at cult debate and talk:cult debate to no avail. Andries 19:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The version befor the merge can be seen here [1] In many cases the article makes conclusions and voices opinions not supported by the mentioned sources. Andries 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I basically support Jossi's request for more references, though it can be argued whether cults in literature and popular culture need rigorous referencing. Rigorous referencing for such sections or articles is not common in Wikipedia and only rarely demanded. Andries 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the text you deleted fro the "Cult debate" section is sourced. If there is material that is not sourced, please add {{fact}} to these, rather than massively delete the whole thing. Please respect the work of others. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

untrue, hardly anything is sourced, and you had weeks to give references after I and others had requested you this. Andries 04:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The citations for some of the text that you re-inserted are flawed because out-of-context i.e. they do not make a connection with the subject at hand i.e. the cult debate/cult wars. E.g. the citation for the Red Menace makes no connection with the cult wars. Andries 09:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Concise please, not verbose

Why is the section sociological defintion so verbose? It explains everything two three times as if the readers are stupid. This is an encyclopedia so information should be concise. Andries 09:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Cults and terrorism" section

I'm a little uncomfortable with the small section "Cults and terrorism". It seems to embody a POV that implicitly claims there is a significant and systematic correlation between the two. As such it may be original research by stealth. I think I would likewise be uncomfortable with a section in the articles on American football or the NBA like "players and assault charges", "players and rape", or "players and criminal activity". Yes, there have been players in these three categories. But does it belong in an encyclopedia article? -DoctorW 06:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There are currently about 13,900 Google hits for "terrorist cult". The correlation between the two words is certainly significant. My view is that the section should be named "Destructive cults", to parallel with the article of that name. While Aum Shinrikyo was clearly engaged in terrorism, Peoples Temple was not, but both were destructive.

Your analogy seems unhelpful to your position. There are 710 Google hits for the phrase (NFL stands for) "National Felons League". Since this is a recurring issue in the sports media after every new indictment, it does belong in an encyclopedia though their fans' power may prevent it. Milo 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a difficult issue. First, as the article clearly presents, the term cult has a very fluid definition depending upon the purpose of the user. Many groups are identified as a cult, yet there are significant dissimilarities among them. Second, the mere presence of the section may lead a reader to assume that all cults spawn terrorism. However, that seems like we are stretching our concerns or fears too far. In reality, I think it is appropriate to identify that some groups, identified as cults, have done some horrific things. If the article already does not appropriately delinate between dangerous cults and others, then it should. For example, the term cults as used by one religious group against another has nothing to do with a group identified as a cult similar to those mentioned in the article. Religion has nothing to do with the label, but the behavior and objectives of some of the followers comes to define it. I am not sure I am clearly stating my position; I think it should stay, but only with a clear statement of the difference of dangerous cults versus all the others. Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the most appropriate place for this material is in the section "Cults: genuine concerns and exaggerations" (where the difference between a small number of violence-prone cults and the overwhelming majority of purported cults and new religious movements has already been established strongly) rather than in a separate section.--Dking 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• "the term cult has a very fluid definition" Respectfully, I suggest that is an oft-repeated myth, possibly started by clever cult leaders seeking to avoid judgment. The term cult has a limited number of well-understood meanings, and all are well-documented. The problem (according to OCRT) is that most people only know one of those meanings. On hearing unfamiliar usages people may doubt the word's multiple specificity rather than their own lack of knowledge.
• "a clear statement of the difference of dangerous cults versus all the others" The reader's need for delineation that Storm Rider mentions can be alleviated by using three objective cult categories, rather than the two typically mentioned, plus education about beneficial and trouble-free cults:
The main category is "Groups referred to as cults" by reliable sources. Subcategories are:

1. Destructive groups referred to as cults
   
2. Legally entangled groups referred to as cults
   
3. Other groups and practices referred to as cults
   

"Destructive" (cults) is currently accepted Wikipedia usage. "Legally entangled groups" is an objective reporting standard, meaning reliable source reports about groups referred to as cults, who have also become legally entangled with police actions, administrative orders/sanctions, or civil suits. When groups become involved with the law, they become subject to journalism, and that includes how their neighbors refer to them if relevant to the case. "Other groups" is all the rest that reliable sources called a cult including beneficial cults (AA), the thousands of trouble-free local cults, old devotional cults, and fan-cults of popular culture. Milo 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just restored the consensus version that User:TalkAbout reverted, apparently dishonestly calling it a minor edit and offering no comment whatsoever. Furthermore, the sections and sub-sections he left in the wake of his edits made no sense. -DoctorW 23:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

DoctorW,

Hi Doc, I don’t believe I was being dishonest as to what I did:

• My edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cult&diff=85380943&oldid=85360318

• Your edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cult&diff=prev&oldid=85320053

I did research the links to the sections which improved them and do believe there should be some distinction between Documented crimes and Cults and terrorism. The distinction being that while one (documented crimes) commits crimes on the group, the other being a group (cult) commits crimes against society at large beyond the group. That was my reasoning once I researched it and found all the links, the training modules etc. So, please revert me, but do not call me dishonest "(DoctorW (Talk | contribs) (Restoring consensus version that User:TalkAbout reverted, apparently dishonestly calling it a minor edit and offering no comment whatsoever.)"as that was not the intent. So, now that I have brought forth the issue can we discuss it further. PEACETalkAbout 02:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't imagine what the reason might have been that you called your edit minor, and didn't dicuss it on the talk page or even mention anything in the edit summary. Perhaps I was too harsh to say calling it minor was apparently dishonest; I'm sorry.

If you read the section carefully, you'll see that your distinction doesn't hold. Also, the distinction seems unimportant. Also, the consensus (unanimous if I remember correctly) was to put these two items in the "documented crimes" section. -DoctorW 07:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Can a non-religious group be a cult?

DoctorW stated in an edit summary that "broadening the unwieldy category" of the cult to "include non-religious cults is anti-cult POV not accepted by academics." This is not true. Dennis Tourish, Janja Lalich and Alexandra Stein have all written extensively on political cults. The late Murray Rothbart wrote on the secular Ayn Rand cult. Michael Langone in a recent book predicted a burgeoning of political cults. Colin Rubinstein has used the term in reference to Lyndon LaRouche. Historians Harvey Klehr and Ron Radosh have also used the term. It is widely acknowledged by students of Latin American affairs that the Shining Path guerrillas were a political cult. The International Cultic Studies Association has sponsored numerous presentations over the years on a variety of non-religious cults.

In addition, I dispute the idea that the only people whose opinions count in defining and classifying cults are academics. The reality of secular cults has been hammered home by think tank researchers and journalists as well as academics. The ADL published reports on the LaRouche and Newman organizations in the 1980s and 1990s, describing them as political cults. Chip Berlet, senior researcher at Political Research Associates, has written a number of studies on political cults that have had wide influence. Furthermore, scores if not hundreds of former members of political, psychotherapy, marketing and secular human potential cults--from the "Fourth Wall" therapy collective through Werner Erhart's est--have described their former organizational homes in these terms and have backed up their statements with detailed descriptions.--Dking 02:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for not spelling out what I meant more fully in an edit summary. Perhaps I should have said "not generally accepted by academics" or "not generally accepted by academics who actually study these groups" or "not generally accepted by academics who actually study these groups using strong methodological approaches and proper scientific controls". Most of them seem to think that the term "new religious movement" has some advantages over the term "cult", and further broadening "cult" to include non-religious cults is something that most of them seem to think makes an unweildy concept even more unweildy. Nevertheless, I personally think that the apparently anti-cult POV that certain political groups fit as well within the cult rubric as religious groups is a valuable addition to the article and should be kept. I don't know what the origin of the idea is, but I seem to have only heard it from anti-cultists. That made me wonder whether it wouldn't be more honest to mention that it is anti-cult ideology rather than an academic theory developed through a normal scientific process including impartiality. Perhaps it could even (if appropriate) be presented as a theory developed by anti-cult academics (with proper citation). I just think presenting it as an idea, framework, theory, heuristic, or something similar, is preferable to implying that it is a fact.

I never said or implied that "the only people whose opinions count in defining and classifying cults are academics". Academics are imperfect too, but I think most people probably trust the judgement and conclusions of an academic who says he's trying to be impartial more than an anti-cultist (even an academic one), or perhaps even more than a journalist who has less formal training in methods that attempt to lead to objective conclusions and who may have more contextual pressure to "sell" the story by presenting it in a way that's more interesting than strict objectivity would recommend. But - of course - these people make valuable contributions to the discussion and their points of view should be included. -DoctorW 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed split "Cults and NRMs in literature" - poll vote

It has been proposed that the section "Cults and NRMs in literature" be moved to a new article, possibly named "Cults and new religious movements in literature, art, and popular culture". The Cult article is 3 times as long as Wikipedia recommends. This large section very naturally stands on its own as a separate article. I support the split, and apparently two others have expressed support above, with no dissenting reasons given yet. -DoctorW 21:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Y I support the split and agree with your reasoning for it. • However, the proposed article title is too long and partly OT. This article Cult is about cults, with all the baggage that word carries, so "Cult references in creative and popular culture" is a better title to retain parallel topic identification with the main article. "NRM" is a valid academic term, but has been rejected by the English-speaking public as a drop-in replacement for "cult", and thus is irrelevant in terms of art, literature, and popular culture. For evidence, see the reliable source embedded quotations by the late Jeffrey K. Hadden and Michael York at 'New Religious Movements' and other Euphemism'. • Adding "references" is a strong NPOV defense against AfD. Milo 01:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest "Cults in Literature and Popular Culture". First, because most of the article is about literature. Second, because "popular and creative culture" poses a confusing dichotomy. As to the term "references," this is misleading because much of the article deals with the writings of purported cult leaders and NRM founders, their followers and ex-followers--surely the term "references" is not appropriate to describe such writings which do not simply "refer" to purported specific cults but are focussed on describing them or explicating their beliefs. As to dropping the reference to NRMs in the title, I support this for the sake of brevity.--Dking 18:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are using "refer/references" in a slightly different sense than that of the major debate at List of groups referred to as cults. But for now, I don't think it matters enough to parse out. As a practical matter, there's only one paragraph in the section Cults in literature and popular culture (now article) mentioning a couple of groups over which an AfD might be launched. Milo 02:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead because there was consensus to split this article and because I think the split was quite urgent because the article was now quite unbalanced. Cults in literature and popular culture. Name change can be discused there too and should be done with the move button, not with just copying and pasting. Andries 18:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I support Dking's proposed version of the title, both leaving out "art" and leaving out "new religious movements"; the brief title is better. I also support retaining the phrase "new religious movements" in bold in the first line of the new article, as is now the case. -DoctorW 21:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the move to split the article but would like to keep the title "Cults and NRMs in literature". Once the split is done perhaps we can open discussions further. Regards,TalkAbout01:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Drive by edit watch

24.164.10.245 has added The Family to #Docmented crimes. The Family doesn't seem to belong listed among the destructive cults. The Family article mentions old physical and sex abuse accusations, and reforms, but no convictions or recent accusations against current members. The recent murder mentioned is alleged committed by a significant ex-member, and at worst seems a case of 'was driven nuts by abuse long ago'.
Note that 24.164.10.245 has a history of vandalism, though maybe this is just a poorly researched edit.
More to the point, aren't any well-informed Cult regulars keeping an eye on the quality of IP and other drive-by edits?
OTOH, maybe the regulars are busy in the real world. Yesterday was a very big USA election, and possibly as a result at least one regional email network is down due the volume. Milo 04:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not monitor the edits of anons anymore. Andries 17:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitions first and only then commments

Every article should start with definitions. And only then should comments be made of the definitions for which there is even a separate section. Jossi's recents edits in that respect were wrong. Let us also try to be concise and assume that the reader is intelligent. Andries 17:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, when you removed the following paragraph, Jossi reverted it, and you put {{fact}} "[citation needed]" tags, I agreed with both jossi's revert and your request for citations. However, I'm concerned that the sentences then disappeared again replaced by language that obscures the very clear point that was made. I'm copying it here so its rhetoric won't get lost.

• "This definition of "cult" is rather different from the popular definition, or the definitions used in other academic disciplines (e.g. the definition of cults as harmful groups adopted by many psychologists). It excludes any consideration of harm, manipulation, deceit or exploitation from what constitutes a cult - by this definition, a cult may be harmless, and a group that is not a cult may be very harmful. "
  

Your edit summary reason for removing it, IIRC, was a statement promoting the intelligence of readers. Intelligence not the reader's issue, it's a specific lack of education, which is real, non-trivial, and goes to the heart of ongoing disputes about Wikipedia cult articles. I haven't read it recently, but I think the {{fact}} cites that you want can be found at OCRT's web site (a reliable source).

OCRT made the point that most people only learn one definition of "cult". (I'd add that's probably due to the normal competitive biases of being raised in a major religion.) When intelligent and otherwise educated readers/editors encounter not one but several other well-understood definitions, they then start to think (and have claimed in writing) that "cult" is too vague to mean anything, or "cult" means whatever one wants it to mean. Those are mere notions that mandate compensatory education by this article.

I insist on clear definitions and definitional explanations, because to do otherwise will ultimately submerge the article into the agendas of both major religions and those NRMs referred to as cults.

I want to put these well-phrased sentences back in, but first let's discuss your detailed objections to them. Milo 22:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I find such verbose redundant remarks an insult to the readers, because these remarks assumes that the readers are stupid. Why not write, this definition excludes theological considerations, considerations of harm, considerations etc. , because that is implicit in a definition. If a definition does not mention harm then any intelligent reader will understand that this definition has nothing to do with harm. Also I disagree that OCRT is a reliable source. If I write that a definition of a church is a building for Christian worship then I do have to write that this excludes consideration of the building material. Andries 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Following the same way of reasoning we should not write in the Christian countercult section, this definition excludes considerations about tension with the rest of society. Can you see how silly it would sound it if we write that there? Andries 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"If a definition does not mention harm then any intelligent reader will understand that this definition has nothing to do with harm." This article teaches not only new facts but also new attitudes. New attitudes are the most difficult to teach compared to teaching facts or skills. To make matters more difficult in this case, an encyclopedia article is written for most people, and I think most people who read Cult aren't like you. I'd say your viewpoint is something akin to "ivory tower syndrome". • Children of the global public are raised to believe that "cults" are harmful, manipulative, deceitful, exploitative, sponging, borderline crazy, and just maybe homicidal. People carry these notions into educated adulthood mostly as suspicions that are hard to dispel with mere words. The two sentences deleted are specifically formulated attempt to disabuse educated adults of their ingrained and unspoken assumptions. As corrective ideas, they have to be repeated many times in various ways to have a useful effect. You don't like this because you are very intelligent with a young, sharp memory, and you instantly remember something the first time it is mentioned. Thus you believe that your intelligence is being insulted if something is repeated. Also, religion articles attract a lot of older people with learning memories that are slower than yours. • If you can't adjust your editing attitude toward your expected readership, and not take personally the pedagogy necessary for most readers, it would be best if you would edit controversial art and music articles — editing and debating them will thoroughly challenge your intelligence, and you may find more people like yourself. Milo 08:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I always assumed that an encyclopedia should be concise and should be based on the assumption that its readers are intelligent. Of course popular untruths should be treated, but the proposed sentences that I removed are more or less also treated with the words by Timothy Miller. No need to repeat, and repeat in violation of the Wikipedia guideline that an article should start with definition(-s). Andries 09:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Snapping"

I reworded the sentence about Conway and Siegelman, authors of "Snapping." As previously worded it was too much a POV attack. The fact that they are listed as journalists rather than psychologists, and that their work is described in the reworded sentence as speculative, gets across what is important in the previous editor's formulation. There is no need to state that they are not scientists when they made no claim to be scientists. What they did do was to pull together and systematize a lot of observations by exit counsellors, deprogammers, former cult members, and others with practical (for better or worse) knowledge or experience, and framed these observations in a way that has some heuristic value and could possibly lead to some useful scientific studies (especially now, with the new means for directly observing the brain while it performs various activities). From my own interactions with ex-cult members over a 30 year period, I believe that terms like "snapping" and "floating" refer to real behavior patterns that I have seen over and over again. Whether such terms reflect something going on in the brain or are simply reflections of group dynamics (or a bit of both) is perhaps something DoctorW could explore in his research one of these days.--Dking 04:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Deprogramming

I removed the phrase about Hassan and Ross being former deprogrammers now called exit counsellors. First, deprogramming and exit counseling are NOT the same thing. Second, the editor offered no proof that Hassan or Ross ever engaged in deprogramming. Even if they did, in past decades, such information belongs in their wiki bios and/or in an article on deprogramming, not here.--Dking 18:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be mistaken. At least Ross discusses being a deprogrammer and stating that there are no main differences between these practices. See [2]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"On September 23, 1995 a jury found the Cult Awareness Network 10% liable for a failed involuntary deprogramming, and Rick Ross 70% liable for attempting the deprogramming. Ross seized and detained Jason Scott for the purpose of forcing Scott to recant his faith-based beliefs."

Septegram 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia article

Septegram 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It would appreciated it if Dking self reverts. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two sides to this story and I will NOT "self-revert." I urge people to read Hassan's reply to the cult apologists who keep calling him a deprogrammer. http://www.freedomofmind.com/stevehassan/refuting/. The controversy is dealt with in the Wikipedia articles on Steve Hassan, Rick Ross and deprogramming; it was only stuck into this article (along with the zinger attempting to confound exit counseling with forcible deprogramming) to score a point that was extraneous to the paragraph in which it was inserted. If Jossi wants to contribute to the serious discussion of the history of exit counseling, deprogramming and the anti-cult movement (and the various different definitions of these three terms), by all means he should do so--in the articles on those topics.--Dking 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that both these individuals are former deprogrammers. The change of term to "exit counselors" was their way to remove themselves from the negative connotations of the term deprogramming as very eloquently described by Mr. Ross himself [here. He says:

However, concern developed amongst cult intervention professionals regarding the use of the word "deprogrammer." As one former cult deprogrammer noted, "By the late 1970s, the question of mind control had become intertwined in the public eye with the issue of forcible deprogramming. This occurrence was partly the result of public relations campaigns financed by certain major cults to discredit critics and divert the debate from the cults themselves."[...] Today, regardless of how unsafe or life-threatening a situation may be, due to legal threats and prolonged litigation cult intervention professionals have abandoned "forcible intervention." A succession of new titles and accompanying terms have likewise responded politically to the need felt by many professionals to distance themselves from the title "deprogrammer" and the term "deprogramming." Such titles as "Exit-Counselor," "Strategic Intervention Specialist," "High Demand Group Consultant," "Cult Information Specialist," "Thought Reform Consultant" and "Cult Intervention Specialist" and corresponding terminology are examples of this response.

"He further asserts that there is no difference between deprogramming and exit counseling by saying: "However, the essential components have remained the same.

Given the above, I see no reason to remove the "former deprogrammer" description. I would kindly request that you self-revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Dking is being asked to revert because of removing the sentence containing "deprogrammers now called exit counsellors"? If so Dking is right, the phrase as written is not true. As the this article explains, "deprogramming" was involuntary, while "exit counseling" is entirely voluntary in that the counselee is completely free to walk away at any time. For another thing, "exit counselling" is completely legal, which completely distinguishes is from the way "deprogramming" used to be conducted. "Deprogramming" and "exit counselling" are not the same thing, Ross notwithstanding. On this point Ross is at odds with the rest of the "anti-cultists". Tanaats 00:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hassan was a former deprogrammer. He says so in Combatting Cult Mind Control. However he also describes in his book how he completely abandoned deprogramming in favor of completely non-coercive methods of intervention, now called "exit counseling".

So IMO Dking is right in objecting to deprogramming being equated to exit counseling, again Ross being alone in not distinguishing the two. You are right in that Hassan is a former deprogrammer. I propose this rewrite: "Ross and Hassan are both former coercive deprogrammers. Both have abandoned coercive deprogramming in favor of non-coercive exit counselling." (Note that those articles do support the distinction.) Tanaats 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just read Dking's opinion that references to "deprogrammer" belong somewhere other than this article. Dunno', I'm new at WP. I'm happy with anything that doesn't confuse coercive deprogramming with non-coercive exit counseling. Tanaats 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dking is objecting to the describing them as former deprogrammers, that is a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are indeed both former deprogrammers. As I said, Hassan says this in his book. As for RR, I think this is fairly well known, though I don't have a citation for it (the Rick Ross article says "Ross no longer advocates coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults (he claims to have conducted dozens of such interventions), preferring instead voluntary "exit counseling" without the use of force or restraint.", although there is no citation. As for Dking's argument that this information belongs somewhere else, I have no opinion since I am too new to WP. I do strongly defend Dking's statement "First, deprogramming and exit counseling are NOT the same thing." Tanaats 04:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Links provided above do make clear that in past decades Ross and Hassan participated in deprogammings (I never claimed they didn't, only that the previous editor had not provided evidence). Hassan has stated on his web site that he participated in some attempts in the late 1970s to deprogram fellow former Unificationists and has not practiced deprogramming since then. Information about this may belong in Wiki bios of Hassan and Ross, and in the article on deprogramming. It does not belong in the section in which it was inserted, which focusses on explaining the range of expertise one finds in the public and scholarly debates over cults. If we're going to allow this, then we'd have to be consistent and insert negative snippets about every individual mentioned in the paragraph. For instance, where it says the Unificationists participate constructively in the debate over cults, we'd have to add a phrase pointing out that Rev. Moon was once convicted of tax evasion (a case, by the way, in which I suspect he got a bum rap). Or in discussing the scholarly aspect of the debate, we'd have to add that the late anti-cult scientist Dr. Jolyon West once fed LSD to an elephant as part of an alleged CIA experiment. There would be no end to it. Controversial information about public figures belongs in appropriate places in Wikipedia but should not be inserted willy nilly in places where the information is either irrelevant or of extremely marginal relevance.--Dking 15:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My question here is "How should we identify the relevance of these two individuals to the subject at hand?" If the article mentions Moon, the most relevant reference would be "head of the Unification Church. If the article mentions Dr. West, it would probably be most appropriate to say "the late anti-cult scientist Dr. Jolyon West." So how should the text of the article identify Ross and Hassan's relevance?

Septegram 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would identify Hassan simply as a mental health counselor and author (the fact that he specializes in cults is obvious from the context), since he has a degree (and a recognized practice) in counseling and has authored widely cited books on cults. Ross I would identify as simply a "private lecturer/consultant" (again, the fact that he specializes in cults is obvious from the context). I would not (after reading his bio) describe him as an "exit counselor" since he is not reported to have mental health credentials and "exit counseling" as it has evolved in recent years is something practiced chiefly by mental health professionals. (Ross may interact with ex-cult members as an informal exit counselor--and may be quite good at it!--but his primary persona seems to be as a lecturer/consultant.) Ross and Hassan's past involvement in deprogramming is not thereby being covered up, since anyone can follow the links to the Wiki articles on them and see details on (and be referred to other sites with further information about) this biographical information.--Dking 18:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)P.S. I went ahead and changed it: Ross is now an "activist and consultant"; Hassan is now a "mental health counselor and the author of..." (I left in the title of his book since other influential titles by non-academics had also been included in the paragraph and his is probably the most widely known of these books.) It is obvious that in the community of discourse on cults a measure of confusion exists over the meaning of such terms as coercive deprogramming, non-coercive deprogramming, exit counseling, therapy, etc. It is difficult to see how this can be cleared up without getting into the area of original research.--Dking 18:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hare Krishnas harmless?

This article is mostly OR anyway, but the proposition that the HK's are "harmless" is disputed.[3][4] Tanaats 17:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Article does not cite its references?

Ok Jossi. When I get a chance I'll start scattering "fact" tags around. I just though that putting up an "Unreferenced" tag was easier and less obtrusive. Regardless, are "footnotes" really "citations"? Tanaats 17:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is not OR as you say, so do not add {{fact}} without checking the sources. It was researched very well by many users, in particular Irmgard (talk · contribs), that you may consider to be "on your side". At that time, the use of inline references was not so prevalent in WP as it is now. Nonetheless, the material in the article is based on many sources as present in the references section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to read all of the footnoted references, nor is anyone else in order to determine what is well sourced and what isn't. However I'll drop it for the historical reasons you have explained to since the footnotes have been "grandfathered" in. Thanks for explaining it to me. Tanaats 19:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"nor is anyone else in order to determine what is well sourced and what isn't" Hi, Tanaats. It's just a side issue, but since I would be included in "anyone else" you should know that I have personally source vetted many Wikipedia cult references at other articles, though certainly not all of them. About your main issue, I support jossi's comments and have nothing to add to them. Milo 21:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC) re-edited 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Inserted change of topic by Tanaats 23:57, 23 Dec 2006 refactored down to "Reference jumps ok but footnote jumps don't work?"

Paragraph deleted because it no longer makes any sense after Milo changed his own preceding comments. Tanaats 03:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have re-edited my earlier post to remove the context, comment that I took exception to your side issue generalization, and make it clear that I'm not commenting on your main issue. Milo 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean correct me if I am wrong, and "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." If Tanaats wants a source for a particular idea- and it can't be provided ummmm I think he gets to remove it?

Does saying, "Well, it is covered by one of the sources listed at the bottom," really satisfy WP:V?

In an article where there is lots of fighting, my assumption is that nearly every paragraph needs a couple of citations. Sethie 04:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just been looking into this. Apparently what you have to do is edit the entire article so you can see the "source code". Then search for "fn" tags in the source. Each fn tag has a number, which apparently corresponds to an "fnb" tag near the bottom of the article. So those who know how to do this can indeed see what is sourced and what isn't. The average reader will have no clue of course. Tanaats 21:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference jumps ok but footnote jumps don't work?

Inserted change of topic by Tanaats 23:57, 23 Dec 2006 refactored here from above "Article does not cite its references?"

Milo, initially all I knew was that there was no apparent correlation between the main text and the footnotes. I didn't realize that one could read the page "source", scan for "fn" tags, and then refer to the matching "fnb" tags. So yes, now I do understand how one could "source vet" this article and others. Re-edited to make sense after having been moved to this new subheading and having lost prior context. Tanaats 03:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Usage assistance: Since you changed your own post's content, I think you mean "Re-edited to make sense". Milo 09:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Tanaats 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Every old system (Wikipedia:Footnote2) "fn" footnote tag is associated with a visible number in my older browser (IE 5.5). For example, the first one is "body of adherents to same32." But when I click on it, it doesn't jump to Note 32. The newer (Cite.php) system of combined reference notes or external links has numbers in square brackets, and they jump ok for me. For example, "what "cult" now means [1]" is the first ref that jumps to "1. ^" at the bottom. I'll have to look at WP:Footnotes to refresh my memory on any limits to combining the two systems. Milo 00:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. This explanation could have been given without moving my comments out from under the comment of yours to which they were addressed. Tanaats 01:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

See a topic below to discuss the refactor move issue. [Apparently resolved.] Milo 05:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Re-edited 09:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

---

RfC - footnote jumps don't work at Cult?

I think there's something wrong with this article's Footnote2-type footnotes (the refs are ok). I can't find any mention of the problem. Footnote jumps work ok at the Wikipedia:Footnote2 page. Milo 05:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Can other editors with different browsers confirm that footnote number jumps do work at the Wikipedia:Footnote2 page, but not at Cult? The Footnote2 numbers are the ones not in square brackets. Milo 09:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Egads, I've been "refactored"!!!!!

My inappropriate comments removed. Tanaats 03:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies I wasn't reading History correctly. You didn't "delete" my comments, you simply moved them to where they can't be understood in the context in which they were intended. So I'll ask a different question, is it considered "ok" to "refactor" someone else's comments that way? Tanaats 01:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, you appear to have edited out your initial lecture to me. I was given to understand that messing with Talk pages was highly discouraged. Have I been under a misapprehension? Tanaats 01:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, "no good deed goes unpunished" when trying to help and not bite newbies.

• "non-pertinent lectures" In a consensus-base politic, it's important to learn the context, and even more important when it's the highly contentious and very complex cult topics, with their long and tedious debate histories. The key idea was that I'm an exception to your side-issue generalization. It was included within the context, though I accept that you were no-fault unable to sort that part out. Ok, I took out the context, re-edited it as straightforward, marked the post as re-edited, and in case you didn't see that, I wrote yet another post to tell you what I did — and now you are still complaining about it (it wasn't struck out, anyway).
• "I was given to understand that messing with Talk pages was highly discouraged" One is generally free to edit one's own posts[*], or even delete them if the situation is extreme enough (like a thread turned racist), though one must not do this for any maliciously deceptive purpose (like lying about what one previously wrote). Indent formatting is routinely done in place to others' posts; usually by adding or subtracting colons at the start. This makes it clearer who is responding to whom, especially with thread inserted comments. According to Wikiguides, it is rarely wise to correct others' spelling in place, though I often do so in an italic quote of them. What one should not do is content-edit or full-delete someone else's posts, unless they have engaged in a bone fide personal attack or libel. Before doing so, that edgy kind of editing requires careful reading of the Wikiguides and ArbCom cases, plus probably seeking advice from an uninvolved admin.

[*To avoid materially impacting a group thread context, it's important how this editing is done; "materially" meaning, does it matter. Beware that in a contentious group thread, others might claim it matters a lot. Strikouts and marked insertions are mandated unless there is a compelling reason to delete-replace. "Compelling" means that people should not see the original, due to being inflamatory, suggestively risky ('Dare you to push the launch button!'), might make the situation worse, or otherwise won't work. In my case, striking a large amount of unwanted text to produce a simple post would have been unreadably counterproductive. It was also a one-to-one post which reduces the impact on group thread context. If, after a thoughtful assessment of balance, delete-replace editing is better, it's important to leave notes or markings indicating that text was altered. There is more than one way to do this acceptably. In the case you are reading now, I'm indicating a later insertion with "[ ]" square editor's brackets. I did this previously by writing a second post explaining the change in context, as well as by suffixing "Re-edited ~~~~~" (5 tildes), which adds only the date to the re-edited post, and can be done more than once. See an example at the end of this post.]

• "is it considered "ok" to "refactor" someone else's comments that way?" In general, refactoring is ok if there is a significant reason for it, but one does need to be skillful at refactoring. Apparently you did not immediately see the italicized refactor comments (similar to an edit summary) placed where your post was moved from, naming the subsection where your post was moved to, the exact identity of the post, and the brief reason for refactoring ("change of topic"). A mirror image refactor comment was placed in the new location, under a new subsection which is still part of the main section that spawned it. Together, both refactor comments form an audit trail of the entire refactor move. The reason why refactoring is consensed by most editors is that changes of topic within a thread can make issues very difficult to follow, find and comment by others, and find later in the archives. It's best to fix them before they exacerbate an already confused debate.
• "you simply moved them to where they can't be understood in the context in which they were intended" That does get into a judgement call. What I saw happening was several complicated entangled things: (1) We were engaged in a lengthening thread about our miscommunications over a side issue; (2) in the middle of another thread of cross-talked issues about citing sources; (3) confounded with a technical workaround of opening the source code. (4) When I looked into your reported need to open the source to find the footnotes (they were rendered visible in my browser), I discoved that when a footnote number (not the reference number "[1]") was clicked on, my browser wouldn't jump to the note. (5) This meant starting still another technical topic within an already topic-tangled thread. Furthermore, this problem seems a significant one that other editors may want to advise. There could even be several technical editors from elsewhere asked to help. If asked, how would they find the thread? That's the kind of situation that in my judgement calls for refactoring to a named subhead. Milo 05:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Re-edited 03:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see "Don't edit others' comments" (using bold type as per the source) at WP:TPG.

As for the "newbie" dig, even as a "newbie" I don't believe that I've yet descended to ad hominisms. Tanaats 17:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You weren't edited, you were refactored. You referred to yourself as a newbie on your talk page — which with a registration date of Nov 15, you are. You did get the help you asked for, so please be nice to your fellow editors, or they won't want to help you again. Milo 11:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Milo, I've gotten what seems to be a knowledgable third party opinion, and I'm told I was wrong. I now accept that refactoring someone else's comments is acceptable if it clarifies the discussion. So...

• I apologize for asserting so strongly that refactoring someone else's comments is always a violation of WP:TPG. I accept that it is not.
• I withdraw my objection to this particular "newbie" dig. "Newbie" has been a minor pejorative for decades and that I poked fun at myself on my Talk page doesn't make it appropriate for you to use as the term as part of a sigh of exasperation. But in this case I'll stop protesting its use because it was clearly I who didn't know what the rules were.
• I wish to "refactor" my objection: I object to your refactoring of my comments because in my opinion it obscured the points I was trying to make instead of clarifying them. It might have helped clarify whatever you were trying to say, I suppose. Since there apparently is no set guideline for this sort of things and since it appears to be a matter of judgement, this of course is just my opinion.
• If you were trying to "help" me at first, it wasn't very obvious to me. I found your initial comments to be inappropriately condescending in addition to being off-topic. Now that I know the rules, what I should have done is to refactor your initial comments out of that "thread" and started a new subheading to discuss them. I didn't know that I could do that. I'll remember next time. [Tanaats 03:01, 26 December 2006 con't below]

I would have found that refactor acceptable, since I was an insert-commentor changing the topic to a side issue, which was addressed to you and not the group. Milo 09:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• However I do appreciate your later comments about footnotes. These comments were indeed helpful and they did help clarify the issue that was originally raised.
• Finally, I thank you for giving me this object lesson in Talk page rules. This "refactoring" thing is sorta' neat. As an example, it's neat that I can completely change my comments at will after someone else has already replied at length to them. I've learned a lot from this.

This has turned into quite a long discussion that has nothing to do with the article. It's a bad habit of mine to get involved in this sort of thing. I'll go ahead and drop out of this now. Tanaats 03:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It is sorta' neat that one can take back one's words by de- and re-writing at Wikipedia talk pages. (I suggest being conservative about how frequently you do this.) It's a feature of the dispute resolution culture here. Elsewhere I re-edited several of my back posts when it was pointed out to me that I had misreported some middle-ages cult of Mary history. That's much nicer than Usenet where a serious screwup is permanent. Milo 09:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Bill Clinton/Scientology

I assume :) that the New York Times is an acceptable source. "Journal; Clinton's Travolta Fever". Rich, Frank. New York Times.2/18/1998. Sect. A, page 21, Column 5. I could not understand the citation rules on this page (even after the discussion above)so I would appreciate someone more skilled adding this citation.

NPOV tag - Please comment on "so-called"s

An anonymous user recently removed all instances of the word "so-called" because he/she "hate(s) wikipedia-speak". I have added the NPOV template to reflect the subsequent POV. Sfacets 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What I see is that 69.247.207.142 didn't finish his evaluation, and simply assumed that all instances of "so-called" applied to "cult". They don't. Some of those that do are a reflection of the author being cited. Each seems to be a separate case for comment review by concerned editors. I've formatted them below to make that review easier.

My objection is not about 69.247.207.142's chosen point, but that his insistent rm's have pressured other editors to take time sort out his sophomoric over-generalization. Had he bothered to check each case, even he might agree that some of these "so-called"s don't need review in his claimed sense. Milo 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

rm/rv edit history of "so-called"s

2007-01-20T19:11:14 Sfacets (POV - see talk)

2007-01-20T19:06:35 69.247.207.142 (The whole article shows that these opinions exist. Looking at your page, you are against the very existence of the cult category. Please find a page to edit that doesn't reflect a conflict of interest)

2007-01-20T18:52:56 Sfacets ("Cult" implies that a group is a cult, whereas there are mixed opinions. "so-called" shows that these opinions exist. Please discuss this further on the talkpage.)

2007-01-20T18:21:31 69.247.207.142 ("so-called" implies that the default position is to doubt that the term applies. The point of the article is to clarify who refers to what groups as cults, not to prescribe a default position of doubt)

2007-01-20T18:06:24 Sfacets (rvt - that's nice, but POV is just slightly worse.)

2007-01-20T17:59:04 69.247.207.142 (removed 7 uses of "so-called" - i hate wikipedia-speak)

Pre-rm diff contexts of seven "so-called"s here, are broken out below #1-7, followed by a comment space for each case.

---

#1 "so-called"

But he argues that no one yet has been able to define "cult" in a way that enables the term to identify only problematic groups. Miller asserts that the attributes of so-called cults (see cult checklist), as defined by cult opponents, can be found in groups that few would consider cultic, such as Catholic religious orders or many evangelical Protestant churches.

#1 Comments

Here "so-called" accurately paraphrases Miller's opinion and should stay put. Milo 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

---

#2 "so-called"

As the Vietnam war wound down in the early 1970s, and the US public's preoccupation with the so-called Red Menace declined, a new idée fixe arose in its place: what it saw as the menace of cults.[citation needed]

#2 Comments

The Red Menace never materialized, thus it is correctly "so-called". Milo 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

---

#3 "so-called"

Members of so-called "anti-cult" ministries began publishing and distributing disparaging checklists with titles such as "Checklist of Cult Characteristics"[5], [6], [7], [8] where each entry on the checklist described unique beliefs or doctrines of a target religious faith.

#3 Comments

I think this paragraph is somewhat inaccurate. While there is some question about a collective secular Anti-Cult Movement (see below), I think this reference should remove "so-called Anti-Cult Movement" and instead name the Christian countercult movement, a name which I think CCCM's generally accept to avoid confusion with rival anticult secularists. Milo 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

---

#4 "so-called"

The political cults, mostly far-leftist or far-rightist in their ideologies, have received considerable attention from journalists and scholars but are only a minute percentage of the total number of so-called cults in the United States.

#4 Comments

This is a genuine example of 69.247.207.142's dispute with Sfacets. The global public, having rejected "NRM"s as a drop-in substitute for "cults", believes these groups exist and are called "cults", however defined. If you challenge the public as to how they know a cult, they typically recall one or more of the 10-some infamous destructive cults. (Depending on locality, they sometimes challenge you to prove the ashram across town isn't a budding Jonestown.)

On the other hand, this paragraph refers to the totality of an estimated 3,000-5,000 U.S. cults in the Cult article prevalence reference. As a continuum, it could be that some of that totality are unpopular for liking drumkits and charismatic worship, but technically are USA-sects of mainstream Biblical religions, rather than being cults — and so on through all the other exceptions. To be fair, I suggest that where "so-called" does belong in this article, this paragraph describes a boundary condition and this modifier is appropriate. Milo 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

---

#5 "so-called"

Another example is the work of journalist/activist Chip Berlet, without whom the study of so-called "political cults" might scarcely exist today.

#5 Comments

In the source context, did Berlet believe they were 'so-called' "political cults"? If so, "so-called" should stay put like the Miller reference above.

---

#6 "so-called"

It should be noted that there is no clear, causal connection between extremist belief and the formation of a so-called destructive cult.

#6 Comments

This is simply wrong — "so-called" should be removed. There is no longer any significant disagreement at Wikipedia that the 10-some infamous groups are definitely "cults" (even if no other groups necessarily are), and these are to be specifically identified as "destructive cults". Milo 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

---

#7 "so-called"

Furthermore, of the total number of cults in the United States alone, only a hundred or so have ever become notorious for alleged misdeeds either in the national media or in local media; it is essentially these groups that are to varying degrees the targets of the so-called anticult and countercult movements in any meaningful sense.

#7 Comments

The named order should probably be reversed to avoid being misleading. Countercult is not "so-called" (no such suggestion in its article), but Anticult might or not be "so-called". This comes down to whether Dking and DoctorW can verify that the secular Anti-Cult Movement article is correct, more than not correct, as to its doubts that a collective anticult movement exists. If most respected observers think there exists a collective secular anti-cult movement, then "so-called" should be removed. Otherwise "so-called" should be retained. Milo 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Heidi Fittkau-Garthe

The section on Heidi Fittkau-Garthe mass suicide plot only references a news article saying that she had been "charged". Since the alleged crime was very serious I thought it should be possible to find out what the outcome of any trial and subsequent conviction was however I did not find anything.

What I did find were various reports that she was release without charge shortly after the incident [9] [10]. There is also a reference in www.time.com saying that she was release on bail [11]. I would think it highly unlikely that anyone charged with such a serious crime, especially alleged to have involved children, would ever be granted bail.

In view of this I suggest that we remove the paragraph or put it under a section of "hoax" or "bogus" mass suicides, if it is still notable given the lack any report that she was actually found guilty as charged.

I propose to delete this paragraph in one week (29th Jan) if that is OK.

Regards Bksimonb 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sister project links

Sister project links made to a specific article in the sister project are not good practice. There are many other articles that are relevant to readers, best is to link to a category. If there is no such category at the sister project suitable for this article, one can be created. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, however this is exactly the opposite of what is currently done at the Prem Rawat article.... Smee 03:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

No, you are mistaken. It is not the opposite, on the contrary: That article includes links to the direct pages at sister projects related to the article's title. That is why we have {{wikisource author}}, for example. Also, the links to commons is a link to a category, so that all media can be easily found. As there is not pages called "Cult" in the sister projects, then a category can be created at the sister projects and link from here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well that sounds fine. Smee 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

"POV Cleanup"

BabyDweezil's edits today seem to me to be less a POV cleanup than something bordering on weasel-wording. However, I'm reluctant to start doing wholesale reverts without getting some discussion on this.
So... discussion?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly states that usage of the term "cult" is frought with ambiguity and controversy, has evolved through the years to become a term of opprobrium used largely in a perjorative manner today; that the field of cult "studies" is rife with imput from nonacademics, ex-members of groups tales (often as commericail ventures) etc. Given the clear lack of consensus, my edits were with the intent of having the article not use the term "cult" in an unambiguous manner, or to make affirmative characterizations about groups or terms when there is clearly no consensus. This is far different from weasal wording. BabyDweezil 20:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

These edits look sound to me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What BabyDweezil has done with the [citation needed] tags is to reveal that this academic and insightful Cult article seems too poorly referenced to survive at Wikipedia. Now I see how the article may become shortened. Probably like many other pro-reporting editors, I lack the specialized paper library access, literature expertise, and time required to save it. However, if Dking, DoctorW, and others are willing to dumb-down rewrite it using only what they can prove, I suggest that every line receive a reference number — ghastly as that will look and read.

On the other hand, BabyDweezil has otherwise added numerous anti-academic POVs. It is not at all "frought with ambiguity" that c-u-l-t-s exist. Like it or not, academics and governments have firmly answered that they do; that combination begets courtroom proof, the penultimate arbiter of global consensus reality. The debatable question goes to whether a particular group is a cult, and perhaps what type of cult it is (roughly eight types).

BabyDweezil managed to prove the cliché that a little knowledge can be dangerous, by making things worse for the group members he was apparently trying to help. Nearly all uses of the word "alleged" should simply be deleted. Use of that word is willfully blind to the reader's inference of criminal tendencies by anyone who is a member of a group referred to as a cult. Wikipedia has been through a successful CfD over this issue, and I think it's been consensed that Wikipedia shall not generally "allege cults" (Isis Holistic Centre / Heide Fittkau-Garthe is one specific exception). Likewise, most uses of scare quotes should be deleted, with the possible exception of "Anti-Cult Movement", about which its own article expresses controversy.

Overall, but making no judgment prior to a fair debate, I think BabyDweezil's attack on the word c-u-l-t in dictionaries should be investigated by a WP:POINT editor's-art jury. Milo 05:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what BabyDweezil, others may have been suggesting is that there are no cults, only the concept of "cults" as opposed to any major belief system - and the fact that there are no major groups competing against the "anti-cult" groups means that there is a certain amount of well poisoning simply because the groups perceived by the anti- groups as being cults cannot defend themselves (or form any unity) to defend themselves against the claims. It is too easy to vilify a minority. So that BabyDweezil affixed citation tags is a good thing, since it is important, if not essential to provide as many sources from as many reliable and unbiased sources as possible so that the groups/cults are portrayed fairly in the article. We should take great care as editors to represent the groups in a fair light, and unfortunately (because of the aforementioned lack of sources defending these groups) it is necessary to insure that the sources that would cast them in a negative light are not to be taken for granted to be 100% accurate/fair - and for this we would need to use words like "alleged" or "claim", simply to balance out an article which is biased simply from it's title. Sfacets 06:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points. I too am concerned with fairness to groups, which is precisely why "alleged" can't be used. "Claim" is POV and needs to be justified in each case (is that in the weasel-word essay?).

"cannot defend themselves ... against the claims" I question whether that is a poor-me myth that they push, that is justified only on a one to one basis. Pardon my metaphor for the collective action of large numbers (3,000-5,000 USA cults), but termites would seem defenseless too, did they not form a major part of the earth's biomass and contributed significantly to methane greenhouse gas global warming.

"are no major groups competing against the "anti-cult" groups" You seem to have forgotten that that Scientology took over and subverted the largest one: Cult Awareness Network. The wealthy and politically influential Unification Church controls the most powerful ultra-conservative newspaper in the USA: The Washington Times, with regular major TV appearances by their editor. Some have made the same argument about the Christian Science Monitor, though they are at the tail end of their cult-graduation period.

My major beef is that BabyDweezil has attacked the dictionary concept of cults as expressed in the title. That is an anti-intellectual no-no. That cults exist is a done deal by academia and governments, and this consensus reality is even consensed by Wikipedia (if destructive cults exist at WP, and they do, then cults must exist at WP by the rules of English language logic).

But I agree with you about the citation tags. They are legit under the WP guides and can flush the Cult article, no matter how excellently it is otherwise written. Milo 12:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good comments; one small clarification of a misunderstanding of my intent. I am in no way adopting a Know Nothing tactic regarding the obvious fact that there exists a widely used concept--with various shades of meanings in different contexts--known as C-U-L-T. To the extent that the article conveys that accurately, its fine. To the extent that it haphazardly uses the term with respect to either named groups, or those contained within ill-defined categories, or those inferred directly or indirectly by those who use the term to attack/label/malign/influence public perception of particular groups, the article is to be found wanting. "Cult" is not the same as "criminal" in its usage. A criminal cannot dispute their criminal record, convictions etc. If there is no record, then they are "alleged." And even a criminal record may have been obtained unjustly). Likewise, a "cult" (in the current usage of the term, not classical) of your choice is "alleged" in the absence of a universally, societally agreed upon definition. If the group denies it, the term is alleged. It's these fine points I'm trying to straighten out. We dont say Subject X is a criminal. We say they were convicted of such and such, and reference clearly agreed upon norms to make that determination. Where are the comparable norms in this article? It seems instead to be largely a vehicle for POV pushing and various other editor's predilections.BabyDweezil 14:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

One cannot assert his own theory

Jossi, I don't understand this edit. If I understand you correctly, we would have to make a number of corrections in a number of articles. For example, we would have to edit mentions of the conclusions of NRM scholars. Am I missing something? Tanaats 17:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. This is my rationale: A scholar that invents/designs a framework or theory cannot "assert" that theory/framework. He can describe it, explain it, etc. But not assert it. Assert means "state categorically", and it would be too self-serving to state categorically one's theory. I would argue that neither "asserts", "claims", or "believes" are good choices. Maybe better would be saying something along the lines "he describes this as" or "the theory provides information on" or "the framework explain a specific set of phenomena related to", etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that people assert categorically what their theory is all the time. The NRM scholars certainly do, and with force. I think that changing every mention of a theory in every article along the lines that you describe would create tortuous constructions. Tanaats 19:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is necessary. What about saying: "The BITE model (standing for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotion control), is Steve Hassan's model on the patterns that he says are used by harmful cults." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks, I'll make the edit. Tanaats 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Related: CFD 'Cult leaders'

I have nominated the 'Cult leader' category for deletion - your input is requested. Sfacets 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"the racial term for african americans" vs "Nigger"

(this isn't to promote any bigotry, contrary to the opinion/beliefs of some, neither is it trolling - it is a question of censorship) Which term did prof. Miller use in his 2003 Religious Movements in the United States? Sfacets 09:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The professor uses the "n" word in his essay, so if he is being directly quoted, we really can't change his words. There is the option of paraphrasing or summarizing his point (eg, "he compares usage of the term "cult" to usage of derogatory terms for racial minorities") BabyDweezil 16:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, I apologize. What you did was revert a bowdlerization, and that gave the illusion of a bigoted troll edit when I returned to my watchlist.

The trolling, a subtle WP:POINT, or maybe just a racially-insensitive quote choice, was somebody's long ago insertion of that particular Miller quote, which is just too inflamatory to be directly quoted in an already charged article. I agree that there are other ways to make Miller's point without using the actual N-word quote in the article. If readers want to view the professor's original vocabulary in its full academic context, WP should link to it. Milo 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Rick Ross website?

The Ross website is a commercial website, which exists largely to promote Ross' (rather expensive) services. The so-called "extensive" database, is highly selective, skewed heavily towards only negative, unbalanced coverage of groups whose vilification is key to the success of Ross' business. The addtions I made which were deleted are entirely accurate. Wikipedia does not exist to assist a help promote a commercial website of a person with a documented thuggish history--which is what removing these description of the Ross website effectively does by inaccurately characterizing it as simply an educational resource. I would like the information reinserted into the description of the website. BabyDweezil 03:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You would have to be a mindreader to somehow "know" that Ross is motivated by a profit motive rather than, for example, from a desire to fill a great public need. Tanaats 04:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"commercial website" The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (OCRT) are supported by banner advertising, which means they are commercial in that sense. Every, or nearly every, newspaper source is commercial, too. As for Ross, I can't actually remember seeing his ads. I can think of commercially self-promotional website formats that are so obnoxious that I would want to warn the reader, but Ross' website doesn't come close to that. I don't consense your sideswipe-POV use of "commercial" as you've been using it.

"negative, unbalanced coverage" It's certainly negative. But "unbalanced" probably just means that that you don't like the normal format of the bad-news business, which just describes the bad news. Ok, I don't watch the local TV news for that same reason — one disgusting crime after another. That doesn't mean I want to prevent other people from watching this news, or prevent myself from researching some particular story in a newspaper of record.

"vilification" When groups get entangled with the law, they usually vilify themselves, and Ross archives the reliable source reporting for those who are interested in scofflaws referred to as cults. Are there unfair reliable stories in the Ross news archive? I suppose there might be some, but how would you, or I, or even Ross know which they are?

"educational resource" Did the ref use that phrase? News archive and (maybe it has) commentaries, apostate testimonials, or analysis that would be a better description.

"documented [] history" Have a care with your loose language. I recommend that you delete your slander-like description of Ross as having a certain cultish history. We use to list that destructive cult here, and what Ross did, while it was extremist, was nothing like the horrors of that cult. Milo 11:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Rick Ross' thuggish history is indeed "documented," so unless I'm missing a Wiki-rule prohibiting noting such facts on a discussion page, I would choose not to delete my comments, which I do not consider the least bit "slander-like. If I am mistaken on the rules, please explain how. And the archives on Ross' site are most definitely selective and skewed toards negative, one-sided reporting--why shouldnt Wikipedia note that? Not doing so seems biased. And its an unabashedly entrepreneurial website, and I'm certainly not the first person to notice this. Again, i dont think my additions in the least bit violate any Wiki rules, and rather, promote objectivity. For those who style themselves as the righteous, facts should not to be feared BabyDweezil 04:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:OR. It's purpose is to keep Wikipedia from turning into one huge jumble of opinionated essays. If you want to publish an essay, please put it on a blog or on Wikinfo. Tanaats 04:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Tanaats, but the half dozen words I added to the external links can hardly be characterized as an opinionated OR essay. Please try to address the clear and documented points I've made explaining my edits rather than using overblown and obviously inaccurate characterizations of my edits and my explanations of them. Thanks! BabyDweezil 04:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil, we're going in circles and continuing with this would be futile. I'll bow out now. Tanaats 04:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To all: Regarding this edit by BabyDweezil... In there any further discussion on this other than from BabyDweezil and myself (who are at an obvious impasse)? I'll wait until some time tomorrow to see, and if not will start an RfC. Tanaats 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the Rickross site is commercial is debatable, however if it is it certainly merits a mention. I agree with BabyDweezil's other edits "selected critical media articles" and "emphasizing an anti-cult perspective" since it is important that users are able to know what kind of website it is - and these certainly appear to be a selection of groups from a Rickross POV, and there are no "uncritical" media articles on his website. Maybe we should debate on whether or no the site is a commercial one? Sfacets 03:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to start things off, let's take a step away from the cult controversies and discuss a non-cult-related site were someone is doing what they consider to be a public service while at the same time offering fee-for-service counseling. Is this a commercial site? (Find "for-fee options".) Tanaats 04:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would say it is, she is making money by selling her service. Even if she were to invest the money made at a later stage, the fact doesn't change that she is operating a commercial service.

Rick Ross does the same: selling DVDs [12] and getting money from Amazon referals for books [13], not to mention accepting donations [14] - and selling his services as a "deprogrammer"[15] (a hefty sum of money too). So yup, I would say there is little about the RR website that isn't commercially-orientated. Sfacets 04:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's beam in a little tighter.

• Regarding DVDs, is this a commercial site?
• Regarding Amazon kickbacks, is this a commercial site?
• Regarding donations, is this a commercial site?

I suggest that the only imporant issue is whether or not an offer of fee-for-service counseling ipso facto makes a site "commercial", completely irregardless of whether the fee-for-service offer dominates the site or not. I suggest that if you took a poll of the general public on whether Dr. Irene's site is "commercial", you'd have exceptionally few people saying that it was. And, since our readers come from the general public, neither would they think it was commercial. I don't think that we should use a very special sense of "commercial."

And let's do, at the start here, focus on Dr. Irene's site, please, so that we can avoid for awhile the "cult wars" and "deprogrammer" angles that color any discussion of Ross and his works, but which have no bearing whatever on whether his site is commercial or not. After concluding that discussion, I suggest, then we can apply whatever conclusions we reach to the Ross discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs) 05:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

You are making things needlessly complicated. We are discussing Rick Ross' site. Rick Ross' site is a dot.com site, which clearly advertises his many billable services. Although he waves the name of the non-profit on the home page, the site is not a dot.org site. BabyDweezil 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Picking the wrong domain name doesn't ipso facto make a site "commercial". Dr. Irene and Skepdic are also both dotcoms. Tanaats 15:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting surreal. You're arguing that Rick Ross accidentally picked the wrong domain name? And your insistent comparisons with other groups only reinforces the obvious fact that Ross' site is commercial as well. BabyDweezil 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now Ross has a "dot.org" site. Tanaats 17:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That is totally irrelevant. A domain name in the .org TLD can be registered by anyone and does not carry any implications of non-profit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jossi, You are absolutely right. That was my perhaps too subtle point to BabyDweezil, that a "com" TLD doesn't either make a site "commercial." By making this trivial change I was also hoping to induce him to drop the irrelevant argument. Tanaats 17:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, the Rick Ross Institute is registered as non-profit organization. Smee 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I recall that he recently was dropped from a law suit over providing cult information as the court pretty much was looking at him as an advocate. I will try and search that out. The point being is that he was seen as providing a service and not a self interest. PEACETalkAbout 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if his organisation is not for profit, or what suffix he chose for the domain name, the website is making money, isn't it? So it is a commercial website. Sfacets 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Then Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is also a commercial website, and they must also be so labeled. (Btw, OCRT notes their ad income is declining.)

Ross disclaims that his news archive is offered without profit (making money, but breaking even). OTOH, The New York Times reports making a profit. Obviously, if being commercial is POV-commentable, making a profit (making more money than costs) may be more POV-commentable. On that Marxist metaphysical scale, the NYT is 'worse' than Rick Ross. Thus proportionally disclosed:

Warning: Rick Ross — COMMERCIAL WEBSITE, but relax, at least it's a non-profit news archive.

Warning: New York Times — COMMERCIAL WEBSITE, AND BEWARE, THEY ARE MAKING A PROFIT ON THE WHOLE PUBLICATION.

Um, now shall we discuss how much gross income Rick Ross makes compared to the New York Times? Reportedly, RR made $20-30K, and NYT made how many zillions? Won't that make an impressive case for banning NYT at Wikipedia and keeping Rick Ross? Milo 11:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

But there is a difference between commercial and profit making websites, they are not the same thing. The warning read commercial website, not profit making website... Sfacets 11:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"there is a difference between commercial and profit making websites"

1) What do you think this difference is?

2) Can one expect to observe this difference by examining only the website's content, but ignoring any (AFAIK) legally-optional claims of tax exempt or non-profit status also posted on the site? Milo 01:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Commercial site means they are raising money. Profit making websites specifies that they are making a profit from their earnings. 2) That is irrelevant, since we are examining the website, and not the organisation - no claims have been made that the institute is a commercial one, only that it's website is. Sfacets 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Red Cross raises money on their site. Should I go to their article and write that their website is "commercial"?

The Religous Tolerance website has banner ads. Is it "commercial"? Should I edit references to it on several NRM/cult pages to point out that it is "commercial"? Tanaats 02:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You could - however I'm not sure how that waould help the reader, the idea behind placing a description with the link if for readers to know and be aware of the fact that the link could be biased or have factors affecting its neutrality. Sfacets 03:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why I would do it. Tanaats 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But what about this...but what about that but but but...

Come on people stop and think before you recklessly analogize. Is there a Mr Red Cross who's selling his services on redcross.org? No, but Rick Ross is. is Mr N.Y. Times selling his services on nytimes.com? No a company is selling news. Is Mr Religious Tolerance of Ontario selling his services. Relax folks. its not as if someone is trying to put "convicted felon, kidnapper and reputed thug" next to Ross' website, just some helpful information letting readers know its primarily concerned with helping him drum up business. And we ALL want Ricky to do well, dont we???? BabyDweezil 02:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"commercial: Adjective used to signify a business activity, regardless of whether that activity has been undertaken by an individual or business."[16]

"commercial: For profit. [snip TV/media definitions] [17]"

So, label all websites with selling activities as "commercial", unless they are a non-profit org. Non-profit legally means that there are no capital investors, which means that an org can make more money than costs, and can thus pay employees who earn a living working for the org, including Rick Ross.

Accordingly, New York Times gets labeled. Red Cross and Rick Ross don't get labeled. Personally, I don't want to bother doing any commercial labeling. We all know NYT sells stuff. Milo 04:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we are no closer to reaching consensus then were before. If there is no further discussion then I'll open the RfC. Tanaats 05:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Aw, gee, Tanaats — as the late USA comedian Rodney Dangerfield's routine always opened — I don't get no respect.*  :)

I just researched two web-glossary definitions of "commercial", that together deflate BabyDweezil's stretched application of that word (to Rick Ross' non-profit .org-site, anyway). As research debating scores might analogize to card games, I think that's roughly like playing two face-card kings. If someone can't counter-play at least one ace, then I think the debate is over without an RfC.

An RfC is most useful when the issue to be decided turns more on opinion than fact. Or when the facts can't be consensed, but we aren't there yet. Milo 12:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

*"When I was a kid I got no respect. The time I was kidnapped, and the kidnappers sent my parents a note they said, "We want five thousand dollars or you’ll see your kid again." More Rodney Dangerfield jokes below biography here Milo

No problemo. I'll hold off. It's just that the last time Sfacets commented he still seemed of the mind that the "commercial" adjective should be applied, and he hasn't commented since. Sfacets, would you accept taking "commercial" out? Tanaats 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Accidential deletion

Sfacets, sorry about the accidental deletion. I use an external editor with cut/paste to make my edits. My practice is to copy the entire section that I am editing, paste it in the external editor, append and/or intersperse my responses, and then copy the whole thing back. Then I do a "Show Changes" to make sure that I haven't screwed anything up.

This time, obviously, I forgot to do the Show Changes. Tanaats 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Yeah, thought it was something like that :) No worries... Sfacets 05:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Final call on Heidi Fittkau-Garthe

I received no comments with regard to Heidi_Fittkau-Garthe. I am assuming then it is OK to go ahead and delete as suggested. Will wait another day in case anyone has any comments.

I know I am being a bit timid here. It's been an interesting week...

Regards Bksimonb 13:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

I object to the removal for the following reasons:The entry has two citation of Time and the BBC and The Psychology of Death in Fantasy and Histoy: Brahma Kumaris and The Hidden Doctrine of the Apocalypse,(2004) ISBN 0-275-98178-9 to verify the destruction part which the other citation have. I think they are all acceptable citations and the later one an academic one.PEACETalkAbout 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The citations you have added refer to the Brahma Kumaris and do not, as far as I can tell, confirm that Heidi_Fittkau-Garthe was guilty as charged. If the story itself doesn't stand then there is no longer any reason to mention the Brahma Kumaris at all.

Since the story concerns a living person, and given the doubts raised about the outcome of the investigations, I suggest erring on the side of caution. For example, if I was wrongly accused of robbing a bank or something 10 years ago and the story made it onto the BBC website, and then I was found completely innocent of all charges, I wouldn't expect to see my name in an encyclopedia ten years later as an example of a notorious bank robber.

Please let me know if you have any citations concerning the final outcome of the case other than what I have linked to earlier. Otherwise I intend remove the paragraph tomorrow (1st Feb).

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 13:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a dummy edit summary after TalkAbout posted the Heidi Fittkau-Garthe paragraph, as follows:

2007-01-30T16:05:41 TalkAbout (?Documented crimes - m edit)

2007-01-31T02:43:34 Milomedes (?Documented crimes - Heidi Fittkau-Garthe edit may be WP:BLP questionable. At my glance before research interruption, this was all alleged, charged, and acquitted - thus not a "documented crime".)

I have now tentatively completed research and found a recent reliable source, Tenerife News (masthead), who ran a Heide Fittkau-Garthe retrospective on 2007-01-04 Beam them up, Heidi - Remembering the Las Cañadas suicide sect scare. "Beam them up..." reports that this was a globally notable event that put Tenerife island on the map. Therefore it's no privacy invasion to write an NPOV Wikipedia story about a possible cult-sect leader who's life was devastated by a probably false and probably vindictive accusation, compounded by police overreaction. But a "documented crime" to be listed in Cult? No way. That would be a gross WP:BLP violation.

"In the end Dr Fittkau-Garthe was detained in custody for twelve days before being released without charges.[18]"

Now if Cult would like to tell this story as an example of how groups referred to as cults can be wronged by overreactive governments, this would be a good choice. This story also quotes an interview with Fittkau-Garthe that gives her side of the story, which includes her denial of leading a sect (cult). Milo 03:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Milo & BabyDweezil. It seems BabyDweezil has already deleted it. I have also deleted it from Destructive cult and Mass suicide linking back to this discussion in the edit summary. I have modified the text in Cult suicide to include the report from Tenarife News since it was already under a section called, "Questionable cult suicides", which I guess we know know it is. Regards Bksimonb 11:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the article

Ed, I would suggest that renaming an article is a significant move. Consensus should be achieved first.

Not all cults are religous. There are, for example, psychotherapy cults and political cults. Tanaats 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I was just trying to fix some redirects.

How about a split into religious cults and secular cults? --Uncle Ed 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed, why a split? Tanaats 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tanaats. There are non-religious cults like Larouche, NAP, and that group where Fulani is in. --Tilman 21:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Identifying a web site as being "commercial"

(I will wait and file this RfC after editors here have had a chance to make their statements.)

This dispute is over whether the Rick Ross Institute (RRI) website should be identified in the article as being "commercial", such as in this edit.

Statements by editors involved in the dispute

• Statement by Tanaats: I will list some of the arguments that have been made in favor of identifying the RRI site as commercial. Then I will place my response below each such argument:

• The RRI site is commercial because DVDs are offered on it.

The RRI site is not Amazon. It offers only two DVDs, one on "abusive and controlling relationships", and the other on the general topic of cults. This is an extremely minor aspect of the RRI site, and does not in any way ipso facto make the RRI site "commercial." Wikipedia would look silly if it opened the floodgates to labeling any site that offers a few DVDs as being "commercial." For example, if we accepted this criterion we would open the floodgates to labeling this TM site as being "commercial."

• The RRI site is commercial because it is an Amazon "associate" site, and earns some money each time someone buys a book by linking through the site.

Again, Wikipedia would look silly if it opened the floodgates to labeling any Amazon associate site as being "commercial." For example, we would be allowing any editor who felt like it to search through Wikipedia and label each citation of The Skeptic's Dictionary as being "commercial."

• The RRI site is commercial because it accepts donations.

The RRI is a non-profit that accepts donations. If the suggested criterion were accepted then we would open the floodgates to also labeling sites such as the Red Cross site as being commercial.

• The RRI site is commercial because it offers fee-for-service "intervention."

A fee-for-service offering does not ipso facto make a site a "commercial" site. About 99% of the RRI site is devoted to offering a free public service, i.e. a large free "group information database." If we were to accept this criterion, then we would be opening the floodgates to also labeling other sites that are largely devoted to offering a free public service, such as "Dr. Irene's Verbal Abuse Site", as being commercial, which would make Wikipedia look silly.

• In summary, any criterion that would allow the labeling of the RRI site as being "commercial" would open the floodgates to making similar edits throughout Wikipedia that would make Wikipedia look silly. The RRI site should not be singled out for special treatment. The "commercial" label should come off of the RRI mention. Tanaats 16:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Since the argument that a fee-for-service offering ipso facto makes a site "commercial" is the most substantive, I would like to make another point. If this argument is accepted by Wikipedia, then I could go over to the Transcendental Meditation article and label the main TM website as being "commercial." After all, a person taking advantage of even some of the fee-for-service offerings linked to from that site can spend tens of thousands of dollars. But, once again, this would make Wikipedia look silly.

Response to Tanaats points: It should be noted that the primary argument being made for identifying this site as commercial is that it exists primarily as a vehicle for offering the services of the consultant and lecturer who runs it, with the rest of the site being a selective compendium of overwhelmingly negative reports on various groups which Ross has reprinted. This modus operandi of selectively--and hence, unobjectively--portraying as many groups as possible in a negative light is key to enhancing Ross' business. Tanaats did not list the reasons for the "commerical" qualifier in order of importance

It cannot accurately be claimed that "99% of the RRI site is devoted to offering a free public service" any more than it can be claimed that 99% of this site about deep vein thrombosis created by a pharmaceutical company "is devoted to offering a free public service." The medical information is offered to provide a framework for purchasing the particular DVT drug this company produces. Further, this is not a "public service," since the information Ross posts is almost entirely negative information about both the groups he claims expertise in and his competitors. And as noted above, that "99%" of the site is selective and biased--how is this a "public service?

The Ross site is not being "singled out for special treatment." It is merely being accurately described. To portray it as a neutral, objective site offering a "public servce" is both false and dishonest.

Finally, I can't possibly imagine anyone would possibly consider the Rick Ross Institute and the Red Cross as even remotely being in the same class. BabyDweezil 20:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

---

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary,[19]

Main Entry: 1com·mer·cial Pronunciation: k&-'m&r-sh&l Function: adjective 1 a (1) : occupied with or engaged in commerce or work intended for commerce <a commercial artist> (2) : of or relating to commerce <commercial regulations> (3) : characteristic of commerce <commercial weights> (4) : suitable, adequate, or prepared for commerce <found oil in commercial quantities> b (1) : being of an average or inferior quality <commercial oxalic acid> <show-quality versus commercial cattle> (2) : producing artistic work of low standards for quick market success 2 a : viewed with regard to profit <a commercial success> b : designed for a large market 3 : emphasizing skills and subjects useful in business <a commercial school> 4 : supported by advertisers <commercial TV>

Is the RR website commercial?

It does engage in commerce work (DVDs, paid services...) and these works are indeed intended for commerce. It is infact, an e-commerce(commerce conducted via the Internet) website.

It doesn't matter what sort of organization the Institute is, what matters is that the website does sell services and products, and should be labeled accordingly. Sfacets 07:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments by neutral third parties

• Comment - First, without looking at the site and just looking at Tanaat's analysis I figured that I would likely feel that the site was not primarily commercial. To me, the sale of a few DVDs and supporting the site off Amazon commissions would not make it commercial. However when I then went over to the site my opinion changed. The reason it IS a commercial site is that it solely promotes Rick Ross' paid services when you click on the first item in the nav sitebar "Getting Help" with sends you here. Were it really a "resource" site it would list lots and lots of other professionals that might help a person such as does this page by FACTNET[20]. The fact that Ross only promotes himself and his own business tips the scales for me that it is a commercial site. --Justanother 14:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• And would you say that Dr. Irene's Verbal Abuse Site is commercial as well? Tanaats 15:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- The site self-identifies as non-profit and says it is a tax-deductable non-profit. Just in case they were lying, I double-checked with the IRS's website and confirmed that it is listed as a non-profit.[21] Its endorsements of Rick Ross (the person) and his for-profit services do seem to skirt what you would typically expect on a non-commercial site, but all the the same, if the IRS is satisfied that it's not primarily commercial in nature, I don't know how we can substitute our own personal judgment, The site's says it's non-profit, the IRS says it's non-profit. Ultimately, it's OR if we state otherwise. --Alecmconroy 15:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I get your point. Don't know if blatantly using a "non-profit" site to promote a "for-profit" business is exactly kosher with the IRS (not mine to say, that is for sure) nor if the "non-profit" status of the site owner should be our determining factor. I mean, this page comes right out and gives his rates. Looks like business to me! --Justanother 15:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so it is the posting of rates that makes the site commercial. But Dr. Irene also posts her rates just one click away from the main page. Is her site commercial as well by the same criterion?

And the main Transcendental Meditation site that offers tens of thousands of dollars worth of fee-for-service offerings? Does the fact that they hide their incredibly high rates (it costs $2500 just to learn the basic technique) make their site "non-commercial"?

And if Ross were to hide his rates in imitation of the TM site, would that make his site "non-commercial" as well? Tanaats 15:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly make his site look more like a "resource" and less like a collection of copyvio with a strong purpose of promoting himself and his paid services if he listed a few other professionals. That would be the minimum, I would think. But it is not up to me, I don't even know the guy. --Justanother 15:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, being a bit more evasive would make his site look better. Tanaats 16:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would word it as "Being a bit less commercial would make his site look less commercial". --Justanother 16:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how we express the concept, we seem to be agreed that a fee-for-service offering on his site doesn't ipso facto warrant the labeling of his site as "commercial" in the article, any more than we would be warranted in so labeling the Dr. Irene and TM sites. Tanaats 16:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you putting words in my mouth? I already said that "The fact that Ross only promotes himself and his own business tips the scales for me that it is a commercial site." It looks to me that RRI mainly exists to funnel work to Ross. --Justanother 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

AGF. I did say "It would seem." In fact it did seem that way to me after we had gone through my examples. I now accept that this is your opinion and that further discussion would be pointless. In closing, I suggest that you are selectively applying an entirely different set of rules to Ross then you would apply, for example, to the Dr. Irene and TM sites, both of which offer fee-for-service (and in the TM case for an egregious amount of money). Tanaats 16:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

AGF? No hard feelings but you clearly imply that I "agree" with your statement when there is nothing in my remarks to justify that belief. It is hardly a vio of AGF for me to query that! OK, you misinterpreted something I said (though I do not have any idea what). We can leave it at that. --Justanother 19:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The site sells Ross' services. How can this NOT be commercial? This conversation is getting Orwellian. BabyDweezil 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a single response because you and I usually quickly start going in circles. It's because no one as yet has been able to offer a single explanation as to why Ross' site is "commercial" whereas these other sites aren't. I assert that the campaign to apply special criteria that only include Ross' site constitutes POV-pushing, targeting him because of his prominent status in the "cult wars." Tanaats 18:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC) I can't see a reason for applying special criteria that only include Ross' site other than POV-pushing, targeting him because of his prominent status in the "cult wars", but I would be happy to discover that I am in error. Tanaats 18:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

/othe

Many sites that we use as sources are commercial. The New York Times isn't a charity, their site includes tons of advertisements and it sells subscriptions. What that paper and the RRI have in common is that they provide reliable information we can use to build our encyclopedia. -Will Beback · † · 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Will, its the difference between an American Heart Association site on heart disease and a Merck site. Both have "information," but we would clarify that one of them is a commerical site. Ross' site needs to be qualified for the sole reason that he attempts to pass it off as informational. but its really to drum up business. You look up a group, you discover through his one sided, selective "information" that the group is "bad", you wonder what to do, then you go to his section on what to do, and he offers you the option for his services. Why is it so hard to see the bald entrepreneurial charcter of his site, and why is there such resistance to simply pointing it out. I mean, hey, I live in America, where commercial is a good thing! it's not like we're calling Ross an evil cultist, or....gasp...a cult apologist! BabyDweezil 22:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there an example of where we label Merck, or similar website, as "commercial"? It doesn't seem to be the standard practice elsewhere on Wikipedia. -Will Beback · † · 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The NYT provides reliable material and is, by definition, a "reliable source". The RRI site is a BIASED site that contains a collection of republished (copyright violation) negative press and that appears to have a stong commercial purpose of funneling work to Ross. Its main usefulness lies in its main failing; Ross has made the job of finding negative RS about groups he considers cults very easy. He has done that by wholesale copyright violation "covered" by a dubious disclaimer that would hardly suffice for wikipedia

"Any publisher, Webmaster or news service (i.e., official and legal holder of copyright) that objects to their material being included in this archive may request that it be removed and/or that future material be excluded. An official written and signed request sent via fax or regular mail made by the copyright holder and/or their legal representative on company or legal letterhead will be honored."

For the reasons of its commercial nature and blatant copyright violation, the RRI site should be linked to with only the greatest of caution. What it is really useful for is us, the editors. We can use it to easily find references to RS that discuss the subjects we are editing. We should, however, then locate the source material and confirm transcription and context before using here, and we should, of course, cite the actual source material, not RRI. --Justanother 22:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Many people claim that the NYT is biased. According to what neutral observers is RRI biased? -Will Beback · † · 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Will, if the only reason to list RRI is because it has a bunch of articles, then just list Google in the external links, which will get you the same articles Ross carries PLUS quite a few more. BabyDweezil 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't use search terms as external links. -Will Beback · † · 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing is that the mirrored articles are in violation of the news source's copyright, and according to WP:EL we should refrain to linking to such websites.

"Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work."

Not only is he making money, he is making it via copyrighted content. Sfacets 01:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Round 2

After going through everything here and listed in the links, I must say that I am not anymore concerned with whether the website is commercial or not. (FWIW, TM.org is quite commercial, and I'd have no problem with you going over and saying so, even if it were merely to prove a point.) The main problem with the RRI website is that it is horribly POV. It has absolutely nothing good to say about any of the religions or organizations it talks about. Jehovah's Witnesses, for crying out loud, are pejoratively labeled as a "cult," and the website proceeds to throw as much dirt at them as possible. I half expected to find Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons on that site as well. One could say all sorts of negative things about any religion, but to persist in doing so is a bad show of humanity. I expect people to show more respect for fellow humans than to trash-talk others' beliefs. (edit conflict) V-Man737 23:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewording

I rewrote the disputed external link. If I hear people correctly, they want the link text to reflect that Rick Ross isn't just some neutral independent "institute". Rather that being an unbiased, objective source, he is a partisan in an on-going debate, and one who does work as a private consultant on the subject. Alternatively, listing the site as commercial is controversial, because the site claims to be non-profit, and supports of RRI would presumably say any income Ross makes is not his PRIMARY motivation.

So, I rewrote in a way that sidesteps the controversial aspects, presents what his mutually agreed upon, but still hopefully accomplishes what we want. I cut some of the "praising" text for how extensive the site is. I also cut the characterization of the site as commerical. I added language reminding the reader that Ross is a private consultant, and used is self-applied title to remind people he is an advocate in the debate, not a neutral independent party. Hope people like it! --Alecmconroy 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Alecmconroy Yes, it's much better without the gushing over how "extensive" the site is. And it's most definitely approprite to identify Ross as a partisan. Tanaats 05:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Opposes new religious movements"?

BabyDweezil, Hein does not "oppose new religious movements". He opposes that subset of NRMs that he deems to be significantly problematical. If you want to put in that he "opposes that subset of NRMs that he deems problematical" then that would be fine. But to imply that he opposes all NRMs would be an OR distortion. Tanaats 05:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)