Talk:Anti-Cult Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Closely related talk pages talk:anti-cult movement, talk:opposition to cults and new religious movements

Contents

[edit] Religion automatically means Christian???

In Taxonomy, it says: ..." Religious and secular

Two main types of opposition to cults are differentiated:

   * Religious opposition is related to theological issues. Such individuals and groups are collectively called the Christian countercult movement

"...

That is far from NPOV if, as it seems to be, it implies or assumes that the term "Religious" somehow implicitly means or implies "Christian". Surely it should say "Christian opposition is related to theological issues" rather than "Religious opposition is related to theological issues" since it goes on to label the adherents of the position as Christian ???

Knotwork 13:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

The spelling and grammar in this article need a lot of fixing. It also needs some NPOVing, as has been stated. I tried to do some of that, but this effort needs quite a bit of help. I think it has the potential to be a very informative and stimulating article otherwise. -- disbomber, 06:12 PM PST (DST), Sat 21 May 2005

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Cult Movement

I challenge Andries to prove that his...

The opposition can be distinguished on the basis of its concerns, beliefs, history, and methods though they may overlap in certain organizations and indviduals. Most of the opposition are cult watchers and they collect and publish critical information about one or several groups they consider cults.

... is not original research. --Zappaz 04:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What are the ante? Show me the money before I take a side :-)). I imagine that some cult coffers are overflowing with dough. Could be interesting to start an aricle cults and money. In fact, I will not take side in your challenge, as I'm sure everybody can find sources going one way and others going the opposite one. What I would say is that your attribution game gets more and more tedious. And, as long as you quote the massimo and hadden grotesque duet, it's a bit hard to take your challenges about "research" seriously. Not that I don't appreciate your efforts to ridiculize cults ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 09:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please remain civil in your comments and read NPOV and Wikipedia:Cite sources, before making assessments about "my attribution game". Thanks. --Zappaz 17:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to tell if you have a better term for it, I would be most interested, even if it doesn't change the thing. --Pgreenfinch 21:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, yes, I know it from personal experience but apart from that the term cult watchers is also used by Barrett and Barker. Besides, how can you seriously doubt it? There are so many ex-websites with several persons involved i.e. for 1st & 2nd generation ex-Family, ex-International Churches of Christ, ex-premies, ex-Sathya Sai Baba, ex-Sahaja Yoga, etc. etc. To think that this is not a grassroot affair but instigated by the ACM is, I agree with Pgreenfich about that, a conspiracy theory. For example, André van der Braak ex-Andrew Cohen has nothing in common with the history, beliefs and methods of the ACM but still he wants to warn people against Andrew Cohen with his memoirs. Andries 12:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree about this :
Most of the opposition are cult watchers and they collect and publish critical information about one or several groups they consider cults..
That is common knowledge.
But I disagree about this:
The opposition can be distinguished on the basis of its concerns, beliefs, history, and methods though they may overlap in certain organizations and individuals.
That sounds as if it is a matter of fact, when actually is only your opinion. That is original research and POV. --Zappaz 17:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well... I tried to remove your name from the article, Andries, but Antaeus reverted it. So it is up to you to remove it. --Zappaz 06:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You removed your name, Andries, but forgot to delete your original research. The intro now still reads still , but without it. --Zappaz 00:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Btw, Zappaz, as I said, I will not take side. But seems to me that you forgot to delete Hadden's fancy original research. That the poor guy cannot protest anymore is no reason to ridicule him. The only problem is that this makes this article POV. Strange thing, if we remember that you wanted to have it deleted while it was perfectly neutral. --Pgreenfinch 08:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that you misunderstand the concept of "No original research". It refers to original research by editors, not research by scholars, that of course should be original research, if they are worth their salt!. Please read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Thanks. --Zappaz 02:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[sic] Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate). The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
You are proving what I said, Zappaz. Thanks. --Pgreenfinch 09:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can the section about the media please be confined to academic research? Andries 00:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? (BTW, I removed your last edit. All the text entered is based on references provided. Your addition wasn't. Sorry. --Zappaz 01:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I admit that is referenced and attributed but not to notable reference by scholars. Andries 01:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean? Are you challenging the validity of my sources because these are not notable? Then we shall remove your list of allegations against cults by ex-members, on the same basis. Listen Andries, I do and take my research seriously. These as are good sources and citacions. Hope you can find others and expand the section. --Zappaz
well, may be you take your research seriously but I am certain that you take pushing your POV at maximum seriously. Some of the sources that you mention are just opinions individual journalists. That is different from concrete abuses observed by the only people who could know, like former members of cults. Andries 01:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Andries, you are welcome to find journalists that have a different view, if you feel that it is too critical of the oppostion to cults. That will greatly enhance the NPOV of this article. That is why this is called collaborative editing. --Zappaz 01:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, I told you before that the way to write a good encyclopedia is not to fill articles with non-notable, non-scholarly opposing opinions. These opinions of individual journalists should go to Wikiquote. Andries 12:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific status of mind control theories

The following sentence is misleading:

the brief did not characterize the theory of brainwashing as disproven or as unscientific (as some comentators assert) -- only as not scientifically proven

There are three options for describing a scientific theory:

  1. proven to be true
  2. indeterminate
  3. proven to be false

Theories which are 91) "proven to be true" become part of science, i.e., scientists pretty much stop questioning it, and courts consider it to be reliable.

Theories which are either (2) indeterminate or (3) "proven to be false" are not considered part of science.

What happened with Singer is that she claimed mind control was part of science (i.e., #1, proven to be true). The APA has said that it is "not part of science", which leaves two possibilities: (2) that it's indeterminate or (3) that it has been proven false.

Anti-cult groups are correct in saying that the APA didn't label mind control false (i.e., #3). But if they are using the excluded middle fallacy to imply that "not proven false" means it "must be true" then that's the misleading part.

The article text I quoted above makes two tangled-up assertions, which I untangle here:

  • that the brief did not characterize the theory of brainwashing as "disproven" but as "not scientifically proven"
  • that the brief did not characterize the theory of brainwashing as unscientific

The first assertion is correct. The secord assertion is false (or at best, misleading).

It hinges on the meaning of the word "unscientific". It seems to deny that APA had contradicted Singer's claim that her mind control was (a) scientific and therefore (b) admissible as expert testimony in court. However, Singer herself obviously did not take it that way. In fact, she sued the APA (at least once), because their statement had the effect of getting courts to believe that her theory was not scientific or proven or part of science, and she lost money because she couldn't get anyone to pay her to give expert testimony any more.

This needs to be clarified. I have presented this analysis, but I don't know how to word it in the text. Can anyone help me here? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:36, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

We have been throught this discussion already and Antaeus, (as far as I know) is not well and not engaged much these days. My suggestion would be NOT to speculate and just quote from the amicus curiae brief. That will be NPOV. Speculation and interpretation is not. --Zappaz 23:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
may be mind control can be classified as a redundant concept, i.e. unnecessary to explain cults when more common, generally accept explanations still do the job.. Andries 16:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Same music, different words, Andries. Same as "deprogramming" and "exit counseling". -- Zappaz 23:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit by Andries

Andries, this last edit by you is very POV. I leave it to you to fix it, unless you need my help.

Members of cult-awareness groups perceive themselves as caring and experienced in the suffering that the movements inflict upon families, and concerned about the dangers threatening society at large - as evidenced by the violence, criminal activities and other anti-social behaviour in which cults have indulged.

You are asserting allegations as facts and speaking on behalf of CAGs without providing citacions.--Zappaz 05:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is what they' say: International Cultic Studies Association

" ... an interdisciplinary network of academicians, professionals, former group members, and families who study and educate the public about social-psychological influence and control, authoritarianism, and zealotry in cultic groups, alternative movements, and other environments.

--Zappaz 06:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree. I just quoted a few preceding sentences of what Barker had written, in addition to the very selective part of the sentence that you had quoted. See her article. I did not leave out quotes or something. The quote contains the words "perceive themselve" so she is not implicitly explaining their beliefs. I found it very POV of you that you quoted very selectively a part of a sentence. The complete sentences that I added make it far more NPOV. Andries 08:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Members of cult-awareness groups perceive themselves as caring and experienced in the suffering that the movements inflict upon families, and concerned about the dangers threatening society at large - as evidenced by the violence, criminal activities and other anti-social behaviour in which cults have indulged. Given the question they are addressing, it is not surprising that CAGs paint a picture of the movements that highlights what they see as the "bad" characteristics, while ignoring anything that could be seen as praiseworthy or even ordinary. The analogy has been made with asking a divorce lawyer what marriage is like. Members of cult-awareness groups associate with those who have suffered (especially parents and former members) and encourage them to define their experiences in terms that stress the role of the NRM and minimize the responsibility of the "victim." Particularly impressive witnesses for CAGs are the apostates who testify to the horrors they underwent while in an NRM; they (like the divorcee) were there - unlike academic researchers who, the argument goes, see only what the movement’s hierarchy wants them to see.[1]

BTW, this "violence, criminal activities, anti-social behaviour" is true for my former guru who is/was the most popular guru of India
Andries 08:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Without being disrespectful, what you experienced with your guru has nothing to do with an encyclopedic article. Write a memoir or put up a website to express your feelings, if you wish. WP is not a platform to express your personal opinions or a soapbox to voice your outrage. Regarding the text you added, if you do not have the inclination to NPOV it, I will. I am talking about this sentence:

Members of cult-awareness groups perceive themselves as caring and experienced in the suffering that the movements inflict upon families, and concerned about the dangers threatening society at large - as evidenced by the violence, criminal activities and other anti-social behaviour in which cults have indulged.

--Zappaz 16:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That text is within a quote that you had originally added. So, only very selective quotes of a parts that you like are allowed to be literal? I find it hard to maintain belief in your willingness to write NPOV. I do not understand how you can seriously defend yourself agains the accusation to use double standards. Andries 19:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and the list of fallen gurus is a long list, not just my former guru. That is relevant for this and other cult-related articles. Andries 20:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We are not discussing my "double standards". We are discussing a sentence that does not conform to NPOV. --Zappaz 21:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is an attributed quote from a scholarly source directly preceding the quote that you had orignally inserted so that falls, in my opinion, into NPOV guidelines. Could you please explain why you think that your original quote fell into the NPOV guidelines but not my addition of the preceding sentence? Andries 21:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If some of my text was POV, then challenge me on that! Please. But that does not give you the right to commit the same "sin". If the quote is attributed to a source, show me which source said that, and of course, I would let go (after of course making the atribution to that source.) --Zappaz 22:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Found the source. Thanks. --Zappaz 03:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eileen Barker

The descriptions of Eileen Barker's "Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups" were simply copied from her article. Either quotes should appear in quotation marks, or they should be rephrased and in most cases summarized. Big chunks of this article seem to be cut-and-pasted from other sources, either inside Wikipedia or elsewhere. Not good. -Willmcw 08:19, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Sorry for the revert then. I thought I had reworded and cited everything enough. But if it looks like a copyvio, then by all means let's have it out till repaired. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:00, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Zappaz' reverts

  1. Everything has a history. this article too should start with the history. Yes, the history was somewhat focused on the ACM. Please make additions with other forms thanks. Andries 19:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Apostates do not tell narratives only to discredit their former group. This has already been discussed at talk:apostasy. This is only one of the reason, though Wilson seems to think otherwise. Andries 19:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
No, Andries, no. The whole controversy about apostate testimony is around their credibility. --Zappaz 21:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History

Hello Andries. If you want to write about the History of opposition to new religions, please do not replicate the text from Anti-cult movement, as this article is of wider scope. Thanks. --Zappaz 19:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Every subject has a history, please help to add more if you think that it is incomplete. Andries 19:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I thought that this article was of wider scope, and if you keep adding stuff from Anti-cult movement, we should then consider merging both articles. --Zappaz 21:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I am only trying to provide a summary here. Not copying the complete history. Andries 21:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe we can just assume opposition to NRMs to be a 1960's story. If you are serious about researching that, I will help. I think that there is a fascinating historical perspective if we go as back as the early Christians and their persecution. Let's do it. I will be gone for a good few weeks and will have very little access to the Internet, but I can help later on. --Zappaz 21:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

But I think that every subject has a history and should have the history described, as a summary of other articles' history, such as e.g. done in the articles for the different countries. I am not trying to copy the history of the anti-cult movement, but only providing a summary here. Andries 21:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
OK.Then let's keep it to historical facts. --Zappaz 23:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

There is no need to pre-empt the excellent discourse presented in the article with a summary that does not do honors to it and adds unecessary spin. Thanks. --Zappaz 23:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barker

Please provide references for this, otherwise remove it. Thanks. --Zappaz 21:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

as she has been listed by the Scientology-run "new Cult Awareness Network" as a professional referral and has admitted receiving funding from the Unification Church.

[edit] Temporary move

To get the article more neutral, I structured it to Taxonomies and Origins of opponents. Also I replaced general "anti-cult" by examples and more precise designations. The sections below have not yet found a place in the new structure. --Irmgard 18:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The anti-cult movement (ACM) opposes NRMs they believe to be cults, generally citing concern that the religions will cause harm to society and followers. They grew out of concerned parents whose children joined high-demand groups they considered negative in the USA in the 1970s. One of the characteristics of the ACM is their tendency to make general complaints about "cults" based on accusations of organizational hierarchical structure, charismatic leadership, thought reform, mind control, and brainwashing, instead of focusing on specific problems and abuses that take place in some of these cults. The existence of mind control is widely disputed, and sometimes dismissed as pseudo-scientific by the psychiatric establishment and social scientists. A 1983 amicus curiæ brief by the American Psychological Association states that the brainwashing hypotheses are "little more than uninformed speculation, based on skewed data" and that "[t]he coercive persuasion theory ... is not a meaningful scientific concept".
Anti-cult members tend to favor the viewpoints of disaffected members, who often hold anti-NRM sentiment, rather than the information disseminated by the NRMs themselves. The anti-cult movement often supports or actively participates in a psychological intervention method known as exit counseling. Previous methods include the controversial and often violent practice of deprogramming, now abandoned.
Other scholars challenging some of the premises of the anti-cult movement such as the existence of mind control and the reliability of apostate testimonies, include Brian R. Wilson, Massimo Introvigne, and Anson Shupe. David G. Bromley questions the veracity only in case the former members are pressured by a countermovement to put them in a theoretical or religious framework, such as the brainwashing theory.
Some anti-cult activists, like Anton Hein, are highly critical of scholars, like Melton, that do not agree with their views and use the word "cult apologist" for them. They accuse them of being naive, bad scholars and above all reproach them of not warning people who should be warned, as well as of being funded by the cults themselves. Hein is quoted by Douglas Cowan as writing:
A cult apologist is someone who consistently or primarily defends the teachings and/or actions of one or more movements considered to be cults—as defined sociologically or theologically . . . Cult apologists generally defend their views by claiming to champion religious freedom and religious tolerance. However, they tend to be particularly intolerant toward those who question and critique the movements they defend. [2]
Scholarly cooperation between these anti cult-activists and scholars accused of being "cult apologists" seems to be virtually non-existent.

[edit] Hein. Ross and established religion

According to the documentation below I put both under "Established Religion" - that's where they come from.

See Rick Ross#Life :

"Ross became concerned about controversial religious groups in 1982, when a controversial religious group that targets Jews for conversion infiltrated the Jewish nursing home in Arizona where his grandmother was a resident. Working with the director of the facility and the local Jewish community, Ross managed to stop their involvement. This led to work with the Jewish Federation of Greater Phoenix, and an appointment to two national committees by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC), one which focused on cults and and another concerned with interreligious affairs. During the 1980s Ross also represented the Jewish community on the Religious Advisory Committee to the Arizona Department of Corrections and was later elected its chairman. He also served as the chairman of the International Coalition of Jewish Prisoners Programs sponsored by B'nai Brith in Washington D.C. Ross' work within the prison system included inmate religious rights and educational efforts regarding hate groups. Ross was also a member of the professional staff of Jewish Family and Children's Service (JFCS) and the Bureau of Jewish Education (BJE) in Phoenix, Arizona."

Anton Hein does have a cult watch page, but he is often put into the class of countercult. He's evangelical Christian and working in a Christian ministry. Statement on his start page [3]:

"This site offers information that a) helps equip Christians to logically present and defend the Christian faith, and that b) encourages Christians and non-Christians to understand, evaluate and compare various religious claims."
Hein is OK. But to put Ross on the taxonomy for being Jewish is preposterous. He is what he is not because his Judaism. --38.119.107.70 21:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
For a change, I tend to agree with .70 Andries 21:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't, the origin of his anti-cult interest activities was within the Jewish context and he worked for years for some Jewish organizations before he became private consultant. Also his "What in God's Name is going on in Arizona" shows a decidedly religious viewpoint (not Christian, though, so he sure would not be at home in the counter-cult movement). I've not the least idea about his present religious convictions, but as to origins of his opposition to cults, he belongs into the "Established religion" section.
No, it doesn't. Ross opposition to cults has nothing to do whith is Judaism. Also, that section that you called "origins" it aint' so. --Stefano Ponte 21:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I had a close look on his site and I doubt his "religious neutrality" a lot. His Bible-Based section has 800 lines, the new age group 280, Neo-eastern 160 lines, Theosophy 138 and the rest below hundred. I'ts also interesting that he lists in the Bible-based section several groups which I know are not usually listed under cults (e.g., Calvary Chapel, Orthodox monasteries, Youth with a mission, Jesus people and even Cornerstone, which is actually a countercult site) . I still see his origin as religious (while in Barkers classification he's definitely CAG) --Irmgard 22:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

No, you are 100% wrong! Ross' anti0cultism has nothing to do with Judaism, even if his career as a "self-styled cult buster" started from his Judaism. --Stefano Ponte 00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

There are several ways to classify opposition against cults - the least encyclopedical is, to throw them together as "anti-cult activists". So I tried here to neutralize this by sorting them according to provenience - this is NPOV, as it's just information about "how come" without evaluating how moral or immoral or whatever this is. --Irmgard 22:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eileen Barker

I removed the cult apologist section on her, it does not fit here, because this classification of her (in contrary to Hadden's) is really NPOV - the rest of her work should not be debated here. I added some samples to her groups. --Irmgard 22:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hadden

I did not add samples to Haddens classification, as his classification is not NPOV. --Irmgard 22:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Who's authority you claim to say that Hadden is not NPOV and Barker is? Note that each one of the scholars have their POVs. NPOV is only a principle in Wikipedia. --Stefano Ponte 00:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Well Barker has five categories from very anti-cult to very pro-cult - this covers the whole spectrum of attitudes and they are described without using words which imply negative values - such a classification can used as-is in Wikipedia. It could even be used without attributing to anyone and still would be NPOV (though not polite towards Eileen Barker).
Hadden, on the other hand, uses words like "is professed to be the manifest goal" "apostates" "the anti-cult movement has actively encouraged former members of religious groups to interpret their experience in a "cult" as one of being egregiously wronged" "Individuals who take up a cause for personal gain." "A few entrepreneurs have made careers by creating organized opposition" - and such expressions do imply negative views - in other ways "this is not their real goal" "cult members tell only of negative experiences because they are encouraged to see their experiences negative by ACM" "people work only in the field to get lots of money". No matter, if correct or not, such statements are controversial and can only be used in NPOV texts with exact attribution. So it is definitely not NPOV to add Rick Ross there (especially not as only example) - Hadden himself has not given any examples.
I have now formatted Hadden as a quote, so it is NPOV. --Irmgard 13:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free speech

I removed the "freedom of speech" portions, because it is just anti-scientology mumbo jumbo. Asserting that Keith Henson is a freedom of speech activist, is quite a stretch. The only notability of these people are anti-scientology. You can re-add them if you want, but not under freedom of speech. --Stefano Ponte 18:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, the free speech activism (also independently of Scientology ) of these people is documented: Touretzki has been active for first amendment in other cases as well (see the bomb stuff in his article), Spaink publishes on her site abortion documents which don't agree with her views (Nuremberg papers) because they are suppressed elsewhere ""Why I believe that suing anybody over their opinion is wrong. Freedom of speech cannot protect only some opinions while banning others." Ron Newman is a netizen free speech activist ""When the CoS began canceling Usenet messages and tried to get [alt.religion.scientology] removed, I was outraged because of the obvious threat to free speech on the Internet," and Andreas Heldals first statement regarding his website 1996 was "I hereby protest against The Church of Scientology, they do not deserve nor have earned to protect their destructive sides behind the law of copyright. That's not what the law was made for in my humble opinion. In this case freedom of thought and speech is what's at stake. Being allowed to see the real face of the church is the only possible method to protect ourselves against it. " For Henson I found no pre-Scientology evidence, only later statements that this was his motivation - well, leave him out. There are others as well, by the way, e.g. in Germany and Italy. The point is, that Scientology did try to shut down a usenet group and used DMCA against critics (which is not the purpose of DMCA precisely) - and that got free speech activists active also against Scientology. That's the common history of those people - they did not come into the fight because they were specially interested in heresies, brainwashing and other such issues or because they had personal experiences with Scientology. So I'll put it back. --Irmgard 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)\
You need to then make a clear distintiction between anti-scientologists claiming to be freedom of speech activists and these that have no relation to scientology. As it reads now, it is an attempt to dress an anti-scientology POV, with the "nicer" dress of freedom of speech activism. Heldal-Lund, Spaink and Newman are all noted anti-scientologist, not noted free-speech advocates.--38.119.107.70 21:17, 31 July 2005 (U
You must discern between the hen and the egg. Sure these people got in some places better known through their conflicts with Scientology, but they did not start the conflicts because they did not like Scientology, but because of free speech. Also religioustolerance.org (sure no anti-cult site) states that Scientology got "Attacks from Internet free-speech advocates" [4] Have a look at Spaink's page - Nuremberg papers. That has nothing at all to do with Scientology, but much with free speech. Also she is be far not fulltime anti-scientologist. Regarding Newman it does not look to me he's an active anti-Scientologist now - he stopped updating his page in 1996 and went on with his life. --Irmgard 21:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Your edit is 100% your POV. Calling thes individuals "freedom of speech activists" without disclosing their anti-scientology activism is hiding facts from the readers. --Stefano Ponte 00:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did not want to mention Scientology in this context, because no other NMR groups are specifically mentioned in these sections, but if you insist, I don't mind. Regarding "my POV": Religioustolerance.org who are definitely no anti-cult activists mention the "attack from internet freespeech advocates" [5] and Scientology versus The Internet contains the whole story including names and lots of references. I reformatted the paragraph according to your wishes using mainly quotes --Irmgard 15:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I changed the section title as well. --Stefano Ponte 02:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scholars and former members

Deleted several paras in section scholars which are also contained in Apostasy and Cult apologist and added instead a condensed statement regarding apostates in the Former Members section. --Irmgard 20:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraphs

Some paragraphs with lenghty quotes have been moved to Apostacy (because they deal specifically with apostacy) to brainwashing (because they deal specifically with brainwashing) and to cult apologists (because they deal specifically with cult apologists) all of which are linked to this article. Please do not insert them here again - that just makes this article too boring to read (moreover all quotes are mentioned as references here). --Irmgard 21:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That was good material. I have added these back. Summarize and then link to these articles if you want. --Stefano Ponte 00:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly what I have done and that's what you reverted now for the second time, Stefano! I have
  • moved the quotes into the article apostacy
  • added a summary (with some more points from the apostasy article) to section Former members including a link to apostasy
  • left the references to the quotes in this article.
The quotes are not bad material, but they are out of context in the Scholar section (because the subject of the quotes is apostates, not other scholars) and they are NPOV here because only quotes of one view have been given. In the Apostasy article there are both sides.
Same for quotes on cult apologists and brainwashing - in both cases the respective article shows both sides of the controversy in detail, so the quotes belong there, not here.
There is really no reason to repeat long quotes in several articles in an internet encyclopedia - and quotes of only one side in an article are not NPOV.
I condensed the whole scholar section to naming the most important people (can be added to) and naming the most important controversies. As all controversies are detailed in other articles, there is no need to put all the positions of all the guys including all the quotes here again. The paras about the controversies, which usually showed only one position and made the whole section thereby POV (again not bad material, but one-sided in this concentration), I moved to the respective articles, if they were not yet contained there. The references in the bottom are still there - even some more. --Irmgard 15:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Stefano Ponte and all, I do not think that the long quotes by Bromley and Wilson with the omission of other POVs give a fair and good summary of the controversy about the validity and reliability of apostate's testimony. More NPOV treatment of the subject is in apostasy#In purported cults and new religious movements (NRMs) and cult#methodological issues and challenges These sections should be fairly summarized here and we should not selectively insert quotes with a certain POV, while omitting others. (I am an "apostate" of a "cult" and I don't like Wilson's unscholarly, unscientific, negative, insulting generalizations about people of very diverse backgrounds and characters) Andries 15:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Al Quaeda

The use of Al Quaeda and the editorializing of the intro using this terrorist organization as an example of "cult", is not appropriate, original research and contentious POV.

Also, the terrorist waves due to extremist organisations based on cults, such as Al Quaeda, has renewed the awareness about the - not only individual - but also societal and political dangers that some cults entails.

Text above removed. --ZappaZ 22:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not original research - Al Quaeda has been called a cult by BBC 1991 [6], FactNET [7] , John Curtis [8], and som3 thousand sites more. Please insert the text again. --Irmgard 23:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The fact that Al Quaeda was referred to as a cult, does not make it right to editorialize. If you want to add the text you can say: Al Quaeda has been called a cult by BBC 1991, John Curtis and FACTNet. But that's it. --ZappaZ 04:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Why should we quote the 236 000 google references stating that al queda is a cult? A blatant fact for anybody who don't live in outer space. Do you need references to call a rain a rain? Will you call that original research? How can denial of reality reach such a point? --Pgreenfinch 06:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
You are not reading my argument. Yes, Al Quaeda was referred to as a cult. That is a fact. But what you wrote is editorial material and original research. As I said, you can add to the article text that says that Al Quaeda was called a cult by sources XYZ and ZWT. That's it. Alternatively, find a notable scholar that thinks like you and then attribute it. No one is interested in reading what wikipediand Pgreenfinch thinks about cults and Al Quaeda. Deleted. --ZappaZ 15:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
You keep ignorning my argument. You are welcome to say that Al Quaeda was refered to as a cult, but you are not welcome to editorialize and add your own conclusions or inferences. That is original research, Deleted, yet again. --ZappaZ 16:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
What I think or you think has nothing to do with that, the sources are 260 000 and I didn't bring anything original. This is not a competition of quotations nor a doctorate thesis, this is the everyday real world. The only thing you can do is adapt the wording if there is something pov I didn't see. As you say, that's it. You are not the master of elegances in WP, just a participant like any other. So please, stop the red tape attempts and accept realities --Pgreenfinch 16:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] For source addicts

Might be of interest: http://www.rickross.com/reference/alqaeda/alqaeda19.html Not that it adds something to what everybody knows but that some persist to censor. --Pgreenfinch 17:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This asserts nothing relevant about al-Qaeda; if you wish to include Hassan al-Sabbah, this would be a relevant, albeit tertiary, source. Septentrionalis 21:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy and the existential fallacy

If I was a professor with an ax to grind, I could write something like the following:

Cult apologists usually have some sort of awful hidden secret that causes them to exist in a constant state of denial, and then they find it easy to extend this loud willing ignorance to others in exchange for rewards. Some cult apologists are repressed homosexuals, and their need to deny their own sexual shame causes them to be quite eager to cover up the sexual exploitation committed by cult leaders. Other cult apologists are slaves to the bottle or street drugs, and their reward for turning a blind eye to what they see is money to support their expensive habits...

Of course, if I did that, I would be quite rightfully challenged and criticized. Where is my proof? they would say. Where is my research backing up my words? Who am I referring to when I talk about cult apologists who are repressed homosexuals, who have drug or drinking problems, and can I substantiate any of those allegations?

Of course, what I could do instead would be to create a "taxonomy". This would just be a simple classification system:

  • A simple taxonomy of cult apologists:
    • Repressed homosexuals
      • Very good at overlooking sexual indiscretions
      • Often get the pick of cult followers
    • Druggies and drunkards
      • Favor cults with connections overseas who can score good hashish
      • ...

If anyone challenged me or criticized me, I would simply treat them as if they were mad. This is a taxonomy, I would explain condescendingly. I'm simply differentiating between different kinds of cult apologists. The fact that I've created categories whose identifying factor happens to be a very serious accusation, and that the existence of the category invites the reader to commit the existential fallacy and infer that the category must at some point been verified to contain at least some members -- why should this matter to me?

Now let's look at the late Professor Hadden's "taxonomy":

4. Entrepreneurial opposition
    • Individuals who take up a cause for personal gain.
    • Alliance or coalition to promote their agenda is ad hoc.
    • Broadcasters and journalists leading examples.
    • A few 'entrepreneurs' have made careers by creating organized opposition.

Hmmm, let's see... taking up a cause for personal gain, making careers by creating organized opposition... fairly serious accusations, aren't they? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

What is your point? Hadden was who he was, and he said what he said. We are only reporting on a sociologist's POV. He had and has plenty of critics that say pretty bad things about him. That is also reported on Hadden's article. We are done our job to report these protagonists POV. Give it a rest. --ZappaZ 02:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of protagonists

I am attempting to have short bios of all scholars mentioned in this and other related articles. Please help complete that work. Bios done so far:

I don't want to see any red in the article :) --ZappaZ 05:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Some more (usually stubs):

((unsigned comment))

Also needed:

  • James R. Lewis, executive director of Association of World Academics for Religious Education

Chonak 17:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How they can get away with it

As some phenomena seems to happen again, including some cultist forgetting all sense of ridicule reverting its own text twice, wondering under what outside influence or orders, it makes me think of the following theoretical case:

Let us suppose some cult propagandists want to beat the system. Of course they would not dare, that would be very cheap;-)) But if we follow that hypothesis, they might do it this way:

  • 1) remove a perfectly true and legitimate text that gives account of the notorious worries in the general population and in media about the extreme danger of some cults, something supported by 236 000 google occurences. Just common knowledge to sum it up.
  • 2) each time it is reinstated, cancel it again, and use some redtape about sourcing, npov, original work, english wording, not enough salt or too much pepper, or whatever.
  • 3) Here is the most beautiful trick, do it in a concerted way between two propagandists, so that none do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours.
  • 4) Even more beautiful, complain that it is the censored author who breaks WP rules. This is playing on redtape at its best. Absolutely splendid, although showing a bit of kindergarden attitude, something often found in cult proselytism.

Obvioulsy, all this is perfectly theorical, just a hypothetical case study. Nobody and no organisation would ever use that pitiful trick in real life. It would show that truth embarass them. --Pgreenfinch 08:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Your cynicism is not welcome. You are either serious in editing WP or not. Spin, editorializing and advocacy is not the domain of WP. Use your own blog or website to state your opinions. Thanks. --ZappaZ 18:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Look at that, Zappaz talking about cynicism ;-) --Pgreenfinch 18:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV-section

It seems to me that the section titled "Anti-Scientologists claiming restriction of free speech" is more about religioustolerance.org than about scientology. Needs rephrasing urgently. -- AlexR 18:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Complete rewording, no quotations and no discussion of reliability of 3rd sources. Sources for the text are besides religioustolerance.org and the Brinkema-memorandum the web pages of the people mentioned and Scientology versus The Internet --Irmgard 20:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Removed some of the editorializing, and kept one citation from Ontario consultants that is relevant. --ZappaZ 21:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
No previous contact is relevant in this case and it is not editorializing. References are, e.g. http://www.freedomofmind.com/stevehassan/presskit/articles/mallia3.htm Irmgard 06:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Then you need to attribute it, otherwise is stating a POV as a fact and that is not NPOV. --ZappaZ 15:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Irmgard, thanks for the attribution of text to Joseph Mallia. Now it is clear and also NPOV. It will be a good idea to start adding refs and notes (using {{ref|refname}} and {{note|refname}} syntax). --ZappaZ 23:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] anti-cultist is a derogatory term?

Irmgard, can you explain why you consider the distinction "anti-cultist" to be derogatory? --ZappaZ 20:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Usage of the word: It is used mainly by people who are sympathetic to NRMsand not by people who are opposed to NRMs (if it was neutral, it would be used by both).
Compare cult-apologist, the opposite, which is used almost exclusively by people who oppose cults and not by people who are sympathetic to NRMs and is also (rightly) not considered a neutral expression.
Both expressions often used to "label" a person with the intention to qualify their statements negatively (implying the guy is an anti-cultist resp. cult apologist, therefore whatever he says is biased)
Both expressions can be used in an article on a person, if correctly attributed to a specific source (e.g. Hadden calls Ross an anti-cultist, Ross calls Hadden a cult-apologist) though, in an encyclopedia, it would be better style to describe a person by its actions (Ross has a website ... Hadden wrote a memo ...) than by a label with negative context. Both expressions should not be used for labeling the person without exact attribution.
--Irmgard 22:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Should we describe followers of a group that has been called a "cult", "cultists"?
No, that's an expression mainly used by opponents of "cults" and usually not meant as a compliment. In case of religious "cults", "adherents of NRMs" would be better encyclopedical style. In the case of non-religious "cults" (that exists also), it is difficult to avoid the expression altogether, but one could say "adherents of cultic groups" - "cultic groups" is more neutral than "cults", it is used mainly in descriptive context and not as disparaging label, and it refers to sociological and psychological group structures, not to religious beliefs. --Irmgard 10:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you on the "name calling". Nevertheless both Beit-Hallahmi and Zablocki are noted for their position against cults. How we should describe them then? --ZappaZ 11:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Not at all - we should link to their articles where we have time and place to describe their views from their works and activities. And we should trust into some intelligence on part of our readers: That Hadden is no fan of cult opposition is shown by his categorizing and people who disagree with him regarding cult attitude probably are not wholly on the same side as he is.
The NPOV point there is, that Hadden's categorizing is not NPOV (in contrast to Barker's), and therefore we cannot let it stand in the article as uncontested fact - so we mention some who disagree with his attitude on cults to keep the balance. Another option would be to skip Hadden completely here - actually I think Barker's categories are so markedly superior, that we could leave all others out. But that's not only for me to decide. --Irmgard 15:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I would like to explore this further. I think that you have a slight misconception of NPOV. NPOV is a priciple that applies to Wikipedia articles and not to scholars. Each scholar has a POV and that includes Barker, Zablocki and Hadden. The NPOV principle states that we ought to represent the different POVs of a controversy fairly. It does not state that we need to find NPOV statements by A or B, just to describe the POVs involved, attribute statements, and reference our edits. There is no such a thing as a POV that is NPOV!--ZappaZ 17:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course, every scholar has his POV - also Barker. But there are texts of scholars where such a POV is clearly expressed and there are texts of scholars where no POV is visible (texts which are perfectly acceptable to people with a completely different POV). In Wikipedia we have the responsibility to represent the different POVs fairly, as you say. This does not only mean attribution of every POV text, in an encyclopedia article also factors like balancing volume of POVs, placement in key positions, etc. play a role.
  • If we put a clearly POV quote in a section where opposing views are detailed Polarized views by scholars, there is no qualification needed and the balance is managed by adding quotes of other POVs.
  • If we put a clearly POV quote in a key section Taxonomies where there is no balancing quote, then the POV quote has to be represented fairly in some other way - e.g. by adding that this is no overall accepted definition (which is best done by referring to people which don't agree),
The Barker taxonomy does not need any qualification, it is NPOV (Barker definitely has her POV, but it does not show here), but the Hadden taxonomy is as such not NPOV, so something has to be added to make it a fair presentation. --Irmgard 18:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand, and what you say makes sense. But we in this case (Hadden and balance by Zablocki and Hallahmi) need to be qualifed by the fact that these two scholars espose an anti-cult POV. Can we say something such as ... "Hadden's attitude towards NMRs and towards what he calls "the anti-cult movement" has been sharply criticized by psychology Professor Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi and sociology Professor Benjamin Zablocki, both of which have written extensivley against cults", or something along these lines? ---ZappaZ 01:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to squeeze them into a drawer - for one thing, it is pretty obvious that they are not specially pro-cult just by the fact of the critique (and their references can be read which makes it even more clear) and for the other, it gets again an imbalance, because Hadden's quote is not qualified.
Right now we have it balanced:
  • Hadden: negative statements on anti-cult movement
  • Zablocki and Beit-Hallahmi: negative statement on Hadden and pro-cult
If we'd add a qualifier on one side, we'd have to add another one on the other side, so (but this looks rather clumsy to me):
  • Hadden who wrote extensively defending NRMs: negative statements on anti-cult movement
  • Zablocki and Beit-Hallahmi who wrote extensively against cults: negative statement on Hadden and pro-cult
--Irmgard 17:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-cult movement and cult apologists

I move the section together so the mutual allegations and mud slinging can be put in parallel - the two sides really do pay each other back in the same coin.

Some "allegations" of the opposition I moved to the top, because they are uncontested distinctives of the cult opposition.

Moved some details to "cult apologist" - no need to repeat it here. Also moved organizations to cult apologist and religious studies respectively.

Deleted Cowan-quote - already fully contained in cult apologist

Part should be deleted: an apology is the actual defense of a POV, not what the opponents say it was. Also much of it is a repetition of the allegations listed before.

Critics of the anti-cult movement include J. Gordon Melton, the sociologist David G. Bromley, and other scholars associated with the :Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR). Massimo Introvigne from the CESNUR, attribute collectively to the anti-cult movement the following apology:
  • We favor religious freedom, but "cults and "sects" are not religions.
  • When pressed to define what is a cult and what is a religion, anti-cultists reply:People join a religion voluntarily, but they are induced to join a cult through psychological manipulation (ie."brainwashing").
  • When confronted with skepticism from scholars who have refuted the accusations of "brainwashing" and psychological manipulation, the anti-cultists state that:
    • Scholars can't be trusted.
    • The way to determine if a group is a cult is to ask the people who have left the organization (ex-followers or apostates).
  • When challenged that studies have shown that many more people who leave such groups state that they were not manipulated as those who state they were and that the majority of those who leave these organizations are indifferent, the anti-cultists then assure legislators that there are organizations (anti-cult organizations) who specialize in these matters and they can help determine who are reliable witnesses (referring to those apostates who are working with them).

--Irmgard 21:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Irmagard, but I disagree with all your edits above. I am reverting. If you want, please do one edit at the time and let's discuss one by one. Thanks for your patience. --ZappaZ 03:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, ZappaZ, "I disagree" is just a statement of your personal opinion and is neither a reason to revert nor a valid argument in an objective discussion. I have given my reasons above - where you have substantial counter-arguments, please voice them and we can search for a compromise. --Irmgard 12:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I am just asking that you do one edit at a time, so we have a chance to discuss each edit. Me and other editors have put an enormous effort on this article, so I kindly request that you slow down with major changes, deletions and moves of text from one article to another without seeking consensus first. I will give you the opportunity to revert your own edits and do one at a time, discuss, agree, and move on to the next one. Thanks. --ZappaZ 20:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Would it work for editors who disagree with the edits to point out what they disagree with? I don't see any specific problems being raised with Irmgard's work. -Willmcw 20:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I have put some work in this article, too, and also some work in the last edit. As I have given reasons for my changes, they can be discussed one by one, as desired. --Irmgard 21:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
No Irmgard, I disagree with you yet again, this time on process. If this is your attitude: "I will change/delete/move any text I want and then it is up to others to tell me why these are not OK", then you are on your own. I have no interest in edit wars. Get your edits done and then in a month or so I will come and make my edits the way I see this article needs to be and then you will need to provide reasons why these are not OK, same as you are doing now. The alternative is, that you make one edite at a time, discuss it with me and other editors involved, and so on. The choice is yours. Let me know. --ZappaZ 00:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
So far, there is on pro and one con regarding my changes - so even a revert would satisfy only 50% of opinions voiced --Irmgard 09:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Following Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I assume the above is not a threat, though it is somewhat sounding like one. --Irmgard 16:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I can see that you have rejected my proposal to do an edit at a time, so as I said I will come back in a month or so to do my edits. Why should your see this as a threat? I will be applying exactly the same modus operandi in editing this article as you are doing now. --ZappaZ 15:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Media

Removed those two quotes because they refer to "stereotypes in journalism dictated by secularism" and "dominant culture als environment of religious persecution" - these are not specific to to NRMs or cults, so they are no great help here. Also the (IMO excellent) Dart & Allen paper "Bridging the gap" (dating from 1993 and not 1983) is not about NRMs and cults but about press and religion. I moved the quotes here, they might be good food for an article "Religion and Media", but in the article here they make just for length and religious anti-media bias and do not contribute to the subject as such. --Irmgard 10:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Newspaper columnist Cal Thomas makes reference to stereoptypes in journalism dictated by "[...] a raging, unforgiving, imposing, intolerant, arrogant secularism that claims that any idea or authority that comes from a source higher than the mind of humankind is to be a priori overruled as unconstitutional, immoral, illegal and ignorant."
Michael Horowitz, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, characterizes the dominant culture as an environment of religious persecution: "Today's elites find it hard to believe that Christians can possibly be the persecuted rather than the persecutors … Believing Christians have been patronized as polyester bigots against whom a modern, thinking, caring culture must protect itself."
In a survey conducted in 1983 by John Dart and Jimmy Allen it was found that an "unhealthy distrust exists between religionists and journalists. Religious figures fear being misunderstood and misrepresented; journalists fear making mistakes and incurring religious wrath.[...] The resulting apprehensions inhibit the free flow of information and only add to misunderstanding."
Again, I object to your removal of well researched and highly relevant text from this article. In an article about opposition to new religious movements, the position of the media on this and related issues is as important as any other text. Particulary concerning the important part that media plays in the shaping of public opinion regarding new religions. Text is now restored. --ZappaZ 15:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, ZappaZ, these quotes are neither "well researched" nor "highly relevant" - that's the result of my research:
  • Dart and Allan made the survey 1993 (not 1983!) and wrote an (BTW excellent) 120 page report "Bridging the Gap" (also 1993) which has been updated in 2000. The survey went to journalists and leaders of mainstream religions and the religions covered in the report are Catholicism, Mainstream Protestant, Evangelical, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism - NRMs are not mentioned! The quote is not from the report but from Moffit and it gives a very wrong impression of the report which is impartial and very moderate in tone, shows positive and negative points and errors on both sides of the gap, and advises both sides in detailed points on how to improve mutual relations. Moreover, the 2000 update (subtitled "The Gap is Narrowing") which included another survey, lines out that things have been improving sind 1993. Report is available online.
  • The Cal Thomas quote (probably taken from Moffit) is from a discussion on "Religion and Politics in the Culture Wars". The discussion does not mention the media, and NRMs are not mentioned in the discussion either. BTW, several pages later, in another discussion (without Thomas) there is restriction of religious liberty for minority religions discussed: an American Indian who had been fired in Oregon in 1990 for chewing peyote and Santeria in Florida 1992 forbidden to sacrifice animals within the city limits. No mention of the media here, either, the discussion is about legislation and courts only. Report is no more available at fac.org but I found it on the wayback machine.
  • The Horowitz quote is also taken from Moffit - I did not find the original online, so I could not see how the quote relates to it, but in view of the above examples which I did research, I'd say Moffit is as a source to be used cum grano salis. Horowitz concentrates on persecuted Christians in Sudan, China and North Korea, and he talks of persecuted Christians. This is not a NRM subject. There is no mention of media in the quote, and even if there was, persecuted Christians in Sudan and North Korea are regarding media coverage a very different subject from NRMs.
  • Moffit is not exactly NPOV regarding the subject: he's since 1985 member of the Unification Church and the Nuevo Tiempo newspaper he is (or was, some recent references connect him with the equally Unification Church owned UPI) working for belongs to the Unification Church.
Please make an impartial review of your decision, also in view of the fact that, read in context, neither Dart and Allan nor Thomas do confirm media bias against religion in general or NRMs. (Horowitz I have not read in context, so I can't say). --Irmgard 19:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, Irmgard. Why don't you start an article on Religious intolerance in the media in which we can explore and expand on the above? Then we can add a summary here. From my perspective, making a distinction between "new" reeligion and and established one in respect to intolerance and freedom of belief, is POV and innapropriate. --ZappaZ 16:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, this is an encyclopedia which is structured in articles (in contrast to, e.g. a blog which contains whatever comes next into the mind of the author and whatever else the author thinks as important). Encyclopedia articles have specific subject and talk about that specific subject - they can, of course, link to other subjects, which is definitely part of the fun. Now in this article the subject is opposition to cults and NRMs, so we write about opposition to cults and NRMs and quote what people are saying about religion and NRMs (everything else is cheating the reader who expects to hear about the subject in the title).

Of course, someone can start an article about religion and media - but it should definitely not be called Religious intolerance in the media because that is POV already in the title. I am not a media expert, and even less a media expert regarding the US, so I'd rather leave such an article to someone else. The quotes could be incorporated, e.g., in Media Bias for the moment. Cal Thomas, though, rather fits into a general context of secular society and religion - maybe there's an article on that already.

I'll remove the quotes in question here again , and make a link to Media Bias. --Irmgard 18:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC) When discussing religion in general, this means established and new religions - when discussing NRMs this means NRMs - when discussing the East-West schisma this means Orthodox and Catholic

If you made a link to Media bias, you ought to copy there the text that you deleted. I hate losing good text. Thanks. --ZappaZ 19:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Single-handed article move

The single-handed recent move by Fossa of Opposition to cults and new religious movements to Anti-cult movement has made quite some prior discussions unaccessible (e.g. about combining both articles and under which lemma this should be done) also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to cults and new religious movements has been ignored. I suggest it should be reverted and the former discussions restored as far as possible. Irmgard 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the article, because the euphemism is not known outside wikipedia. It has been invented by anti-cult activists, who for some reason do not like to appear as a collective entity. Nevertheless, the existence of a anti-cult movement is an established fact, which no serious scholar, not even Zablocki denies.--Fossa 22:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
There used to be two article and there should be two articles because 1. opposition to cults and new religious movements is much broader than the anti-cult movement that is defined by Bromley as the groups that believe in Brainwashing 2. the existence of the anti-cult movement is undisputed. (I agree with Fossa about this) Irmgard merged the two articles and I did not agree with the merge but I have to admit that I am to blame too because I did not protest to the merge. Andries 22:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Clearly opposition to cults and new religious movements is not a collective entity and it should not be treated as such. Andries 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Fossa, you have no right to override a failed afd. Re-submit it to afd if you want. Andries 22:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Fossa seems to be under the strange misconception that every article title must refer to an entity, rather than to a topic. That's the only sense I can make out of his obscure reference to "the euphemism"; it's as if he thinks that someone is trying to say that there's an entity euphemistically called "opposition to cults and new religious movements", rather than that this is the article about the topic of opposition to cults and new religious movements. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual accuracy warning

The definition is completely wrong. Bromley defined the anti-cult movement as the amalgam of groups that believe in brainwashing. I oppose merging the two articles, because there are more sources of opposition to cults and new religious movements than the anti-cult movement. Andries 22:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Now we two bad and factually inaccurate articles. Please help to clean up the mess. Thanks. Andries 22:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Which article by Bromley are you referring to? Unfortunately, all social scientific concepts vary by author and over time. I cannot imagine that Bromley used such an unsociological definition at any time. --Fossa 22:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Bromley and Anson Shupe, Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare. Boston: Beacon Press, 1981 You can read a summary of their views in Mary McCormick Maaga Hearing the Voices of Jonestown Andries 22:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that the definition of the anti-cult movement is difficult and I have tried and tried before but the current definition is clearly incorrect and opposition to cults and new religious comprises of more than just the anti-cult movement. Andries 23:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Barrett also wrote about the anti-cult movement but he did not give a clear definition unfortunately. Andries 23:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I myself distinguish between the more secular ACM and Christian Apologetics. Recently, these two currents have become closer to each other in terms of ideology, though. I have no qualms to lump them together in one ACM, or, as Bromley&Shupe call them "organized opposition against cults." As an aside, there are no clear-cut definitions in sociology that would compare to definitions in physics or mathematics.--Fossa 23:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that Melton made a distinction between the Christian apologetic counter-cult movement and the anti-cult movement, but the latter is difficult to define. Do you have references to back up your statement that Bromley called the ACM "organized opposition to cults", because it clearly is a different defintion than I have read from them. This article used to have a better definition provided by me, based on the book by Barrett. Andries 23:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, if we used the definition of "organized opposition against cults" then we have to exclude some individuals, like Tilman Hausherr who are generally considered to be part of the ACM. In other words, that definition is incorrect. Andries 00:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Definitions are part and parcel of Wikipedia.[9] Andries 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up reasons and tasks Feb 2006

  1. This article treats a lot of opposition to cults and new religious movements that is not part of the ACM. This should be removed or moved. On the other hand, they should be treated here to some extent to give the reader insight in the matter. Andries 09:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. The different definitions should be treated. The definition by Bromley and Shupe, though reasonable clear seems outdated and very disputed and the more recent book by Barrett uses different characteristics than Bromley, but Barrett does not provide a definition. We should also write how protaganists describe themselves. This is, I think, the most difficult task. Andries 09:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be doing cleanup on this page. Add any comments to my desk. Alphabeter 00:35 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cult debate

I suggest that Cult debate be deleted, it is closely related to this and other definitions, it isn't a real term. Sadly I don't know how to start a request for deletion. --Tilman 17:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you looking for WP:AFD? Antonrojo 18:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. So many policies, so little time :( --Tilman 05:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Tilman: Motivation of deletions i.e. Off topic

This article describes the anti-cult movement, not the more general opposition to cults and new religious movements. Disputes between critical former members and its current members should be treated in the latter article. Anton Hein belongs to the Christian counter cult movement, not here. Andries 18:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Other off topic subjects in this article are a description of opposition by skeptics, media bias, and an extensive description of the Christian countercult movement. Andries 19:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you include these topics in the other definitions? After all, this has been the work of many people. --Tilman 19:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you added some notices in the article that parts should be merged etc. This is much better. Someone will do it, hopefully. --Tilman 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not know whether this is better, because now this article continues to have many off-topic remarks and subjects. Andries 19:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you please help to merge instead of just restoring off-topic contents. Andries 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm inexperienced with the other definitions where you think it belongs. So I prefer that we'd wait for somebody who is experienced enough and willing to help. But deleting only is mever a solution IMO. --Tilman 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of off-topic material is a very good solution IMO. Most if not all is already described in apostasy, opposition to cults and new religious movements, and Christian countercult movement. Please do not expect me or other editors to do all the work. Andries 19:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
We have been waiting since February 2006. I will remove again off-topic contents again within one week unless someone shows up in the meantime who is willing to do the merger. Andries 19:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I object to any removal of material prior to any merger attempts. When the mergar happens material that maty be duplicated could be deleted, but not before. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
We have been waiting since February 2006 for removal of off-topic material. I will remove off-topic again in 6 days regardless if it is merged. Andries 19:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, you reverted back to a version that contained a factual inaccuary i.e. that Wilson coined the term atrocity story. I will give the article a disputed warning. Andries 19:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I also think that the name should be Bromley and not Bromfield. I will give the article a factual accuracy warning. Now it is time for others, not just me, to do some effort to improve it, instead of giving a mass-revert. Andries 19:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that the only innaccuracy? That is easily fixable. Who coined the term? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the term is explained in Atrocity_story. We could use that as the basis to define it here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Shupe, Bromley and Ventimiglia (sp) coined the term. Please check the history of the article. Andries 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
So fix it... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It was correct until you gave it a mass revert. Please fix the article yourself. Andries 19:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi: if you revert, it is very poor style not to afterwards redo the changes that were not in dispute. --Tilman 21:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, but note that it is poor style to remove content before a merge, as content that editors worked hard to source and edit gets lost that way. I fixed the reference myself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Almost all of the off-topic contents that you restored was already present in other articles such as apostasy, opposition to cults and new religious movements, cults, hate group, scientific skepticism, Christian countercult movement. Andries 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not consider it poor style if editors remove contents about Albert Einstein at the Adolf Hitler article without trying to merge it first. Andries 18:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Content is not off-topic, on the contrary. There is no chance for that merge, anyway, as both articles are already over their size limit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If you think that the contents is not off-topic then please explain why the folllowing sentence about the Christian counter cult activist belongs here. Please provide references for the assertion that Hein is not a Christian counter cult activist but a anti-cult activist. The sentence either belongs at hate group where at already is, or at cult or at Christian counter cult movement but not here. This is just one example of the off-topic contents. More will follow.
" Advocates who regard certain fringe religious organizations, new religious movements or (controversially) "cults" as spurious and condemn their methods, also call them "hate groups". For example, the prominent Dutch Christian counter cult activist Anton Hein considers Scientology a hate group because that religious movement has, in his opinion, a long, documented history of hate and harassment activities[6], which—along with lying and deception—are condoned and encouraged in Scientology's own 'scriptures.' (See, for example, Scientology's Fair Game [7] policy.)"
Andries 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Jossi also please provide arguments for your assertion that the following fragment is not off-opic. Where is the reference that ex-premies are ant-cultists? I think this belong either in Elan Vital, Criticism of Prem Rawat, apostasy, or Opposition to cults and new religious movements, but not here.
"Elan Vital, an NRM and an organization that supports the work of Prem Rawat, accuse its vocal critics that call themselves "Ex-Premies", to harbor the hatred and ill-will typical of a hate group, such as hate speech and harassment. The Ex-Premies reject these accusations asserting that the evidence for these allegations is uncorroborated, and assert that they are performing a public service by providing information not disclosed by Elan Vital.'"
Andries 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, many thanks for your compromise to remove the above mentioned material that I labelled as off-topic. Andries 19:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I still think that the fragment about Anton Hein's opinions is off-topic. Andries 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Is Hein not of the Christian counter-cult? http://www.apologeticsindex.org/? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Hein is christian counter cult, so he is not anti-cult. Andries 20:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Right. You can move it then to Christian_countercult_movement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it your policy to first revert my edits and then later after you have studied the subject and discussion on the talk page with me to come to the conclusion that your revert was unjustified after all? This may be the wrong order. Andries 21:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources required?

Andries, you are adding a request for sources, but sources are provided. It is not asserted as a fact, it is asserted as an opinion. What do you mean by "I think that just an interview is not a good source for this statement"? You have two sources provided (Introvigne and Barker). as well as a wikilink to deviancy amplification spiral. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said before on my talk page regarding charismatic authority in a discussion with you, I think that an interview is not a very good source. I think that Barrett wrote it in his book too. Will check. Andries 19:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC) (amended for clarifiction)
There is only one source i.e. the interview with Barker. Andries 20:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
What about 'Introvigne's?
Then it has to be re-worded. He says something somewhat differently from Barker. Andries 20:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is I think that interviews are often loosely formulated. Hence I object to using an interview as a source when better sources are available. Andries 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If you have a better source, please replace it. But adding a {{fact}} on the basis of your dislikes, it may not be appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Some subjectivity in assessing the reputability of sources cannot be avoided. Andries 18:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yet another factual accuracy warning

Reason for yet another factual accuracy warning after Jossi's recent mass revert is the sentence that according to Bromely and Shupe and Ventimiglia hostile ex-members invariable distort the truth. This is untrue. Please check the history of the article for the correct wording. Andries 19:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

it is still wrong. Check the history of the article. Andries 20:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I checked the history and could not find it. You can provide the diff, if you can be so kind. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Existence of movement

Cut from intro (was 2nd paragraph):

The term is often used in literature by scholars of NRMs, who imply that these various groups and individuals are one movement, closely linked, with the same or very similar agenda and objectives (Bromley, Shupe, Massimo Introvigne). On the other hand, people thus labeled point out that the various movements lumped together in this term are too diverse to justify such a label and that the existence of a uniform movement against cults has never been verified by a sociological study on these groups. (Kropveld, 2003, Langone 2005)

This is a mealy-mouthed way of saying that there is no ACM, and that biased NRM scholars are just saying there is one.

  • term is often used
  • imply that [they] are one movement
  • too diverse to justify such a label
  • existence ... has never been verified

If there's no movement, then what is this article about? --Uncle Ed 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The question should be what justification does Ed Poor have to remove sourced contents? Andries 19:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It was not removed. I copied it and pasted it here, to spark a discussion.
Do you have any comment on whether the ACM exists? Or on whether NRM scholars are in error? --Uncle Ed 19:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do have an opinion on the matter, but I will respond on your talk page, because it is more or less unrelated to the current state of the article. Andries 20:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Some "scholars" think there is one. And others disagree. So I put the segment back. --Tilman 16:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Barker funding references

An article [10] at "Apologetics Resource Center" also has references for the Unification funding, including Margaret Singer's Cults in Our Midst. AndroidCat 03:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for deprogramming being "obsolete"

Hi folks, I'm new to this article and look forward to working with you all. For my first proposed edit, I'd like to add http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_deprogramming_clarify.htm as the citation for "Some concentrate on members of cultic groups which they seek to extricate, either by deprogramming techniques (now obsolete)...". Tanaats 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and do it (use the "ref" format, see other notes) --Tilman 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, did it. (I hope you meant I should use "ref" tags.) Tanaats 21:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't the opening sentence POV?

I'm a bit new here at WP, but isn't the very first sentence in the article POV in that it completely begs the question[11] of whether ACMs actually even exist or not?: "The anti-cult movement, sometimes abbreviated as "ACM", opposes cults and new religious movements that anti-cultists see as harmful or dangerous for society and individuals." In other words, the opening sentence baldly assumes that an ACM even exists, which is not a fact but rather an opinion, and an opinion which is challenged later in the article. Tanaats 01:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

While I do of course disagree with the ACM concept, if you would change it to ACMs, you would do "original research" WP:NOR. There are many "scholars" who claim that there is an ACM. There are also opposing scholars, who are mentioned.
The word "anti-cultists", however, is really a bad one, since it suggests that these are cultists themselves. I thought I had corrected this months ago... but maybe I didn't, or maybe I did it elsewhere. --Tilman 07:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, "ACMs" was a typo, I meant "ACM". My only point is that the opening sentence assumes that there is such a thing as an ACM (singular) which I think starts the article out with POV because it is stated as a fact rather than an opinion (which is all that it is). I would propose something like "Many scholars of NRMs posit that there is such a thing as anti-cult movement, sometimes abbreviated as "ACM", that opposes cults and new religious movements that it sees as harmful or dangerous for society and individuals." That would be more objectively accurate, and the article wouldn't start out with a POV spin. Tanaats 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a better solution would be to reword the intro. I'd suggest something like "Anti-Cult Movement is a controversial term to mean people opposing cults etc etc...", and then explain the two positions about the term and this why it is controversial. However someone else will have to come up with an encyclopedian language :) --Tilman 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds better, yes. How about "'Anti-Cult Movement', sometimes abbreviated "ACM", is a controversial term used by some scholars to refer to an organized opposition to cults and new religious movements that it sees as harmful or dangerous for society and individuals." Tanaats 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
My own proposal above is still POV. I think the word "alleged" would be appropriate: "'Anti-Cult Movement', sometimes abbreviated "ACM", is a controversial term used by some scholars to refer to an alleged organized opposition to cults and new religious movements that it sees as harmful or dangerous for society and individuals." Tanaats 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I made the change. Tanaats 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jossi. I notice you rv'd my change to the first sentence. The "ACM" is only referred to widely in the literature by proponents of NRM theory and is POV. It is considered a meaningless pejorative by cult critics. e.g. [12]. The term is therefore objectively "controversial" as I tried to introduce into the first sentence. I won't get into an rv war with you, but I'm willing to take this through dispute resolution to see how far I can get -- maybe your version will prevail but I'd like to see. The article should of course report on the POV of NRM theory, but it shouldn't state such "theory" as "fact". Tanaats 02:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about an apparent "talk page redirect"

When I click the "Discussion" tab on Opposition to cults and new religious movements I end up here. Is that a bug or is it intentional? Tanaats 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The question of whether there actually is an ACM is debated.

I added the sentence "The question of whether there actually is an ACM is debated" at the beginning of the second paragraph. I feel that it is important to emphasize the fact that there is disagreement over the term. One can deduce the fact of the debate from the rest of the paragraph, but the point is too subtle IMO. I believe that the addition is NPOV, especially given that the existence of an ACM is assumed at at least one point further down in the article. (Sorry, I wasn't signed in when I made the change.) Tanaats 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "According to Eileen Barker"

I added "According to Eileen Barker to form the sentence "According to sociologist Eileen Barker, cult watching groups (CWGs) disseminate information about "cults" with the intent of changing public and government perception of them and changing public policy regarding the NRMs." I feel that this is NPOV because despite the title of the section it is not otherwise completely obvious that this is her opinion rather than an objective fact. Also, it is congruent with "Sociologist Eileen Barker has identified five types of CWG..." just below. Tanaats 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "...labelled as being part of the ACM"

Under "Bibliography" I changed the first heading to "By protagonists or organizations labeled as being part of the ACM". This is more NPOV because it is highly disputable that there even is an ACM. And if there was one the allegation that these people/organizations are part of it is unverifiable. (I think that the "About the ACM" heading is OK because these people are, objectively, indeed writing about the hypothetical "ACM". Tanaats 03:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAnti-Cult_Movement_9fbf.html"