Talk:Cult apologist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cult apologist article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
Previous discussions have been archived:
Archive Period covered
Talk:Cult apologist/Archive 1 April 2005-December 2006

Contents

[edit] "social scientists value objectivity and neutrality"

Social scientists that are cult apologists don't value objectivity and neutrality, especially when they work hand in hand with cults. So I deleted that. And I also deleted "Use of the term in this way is pejorative". It is pretty obvious that the term is negative. --Tilman 18:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. The objectivity and neutrality of some of the social scientists involved with NRM theory is disputed. and the disputation is supported by reasonable arguments. Tanaats 18:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
When you accuse a social scientist of not valuing objectivity and neutrality, you are insulting him or her (by definition). Whether the insult is justified or not is another matter. -DoctorW 23:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
That is original research. I admit that the definition is already original research, but the difference is that Wikipedia needs definitions. You are inserting original research unnecessarily. Andries 17:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Very true. Please try to provide secondary sources for these claims. Smeelgova 17:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
It is actually not true, that all social scientists value objectivity and neutrality. There is a long-standing debate in the social sciences, if objectivity and/or neutrality are attainable, and, if they are, if they are desirable. Examples of scholars who are deliberately partisan, are abundant (my neo-Marxists, feminists, etc.). Fossa?! 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Those who are deliberately partisan should not call themselves scientists. Science values objectivity and neutrality, by defintion. -DoctorW 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The keyword here is "should": You are making a normative statement, but the "fact" is, that many social scientists think differently. I will therefore delete that sentence once again. Fossa?! 23:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The intro currently says "Use of the term in this way is pejorative. Because social scientists value objectivity and neutrality, the term is highly offensive." This is overkill. It would be enough to say either "Use of the term in this way is pejorative" or "Because social scientists value objectivity and neutrality, the term is highly offensive." Tanaats 00:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI

Please see WP:COI#Citing_oneself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


From WP:EL: Links to be avoided: "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm as much a "scholar" as Introvigne and Melton :)
Seriously, I don't mind the link to the cult apologist FAQ being deleted. It is mostly a reference work, for those who research these people. What I did mind, was that Wikipedia linked to an altered copy, which is why I changed it, and thus it appeared on your radar. --Tilman 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

1. It is not the case that "The term is often used in a pejorative way." It is pejorative by definition. A single word is better than a sentence.

2. User:Fossa is correct that the value-neutral terms ("nrm" instead of "cult", cult "opponents" instead of "critics") are better here.

3. A citation is not needed (and not possible) for a definition or for an elucidation of the axiomatic aspects of a definition. -DoctorW 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it pejorative by definition? Let us keep the original research to a minimum please. Andries 22:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It is coined as a pejorative term. "Cult" is pejorative, and somebody who "defends" "cults" defends something "bad". Fossa?! 22:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
May be, but I have not seen any citation to back up your claim. I have observed that it is sometimes used as a neutral term in Wikipedia. It is a non-essential part of the definition and hence such original research needs to be removed or at least toned down. Andries
The fetishism of demanding a "citation" for each and every banality is a quite popular in Wikipedia spin doctoring. Find me a scientific article that water is wet! There isn't any, because it is so banal, that it would not be published. Fossa?! 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
But I have used the term in a neutral way. Andries 23:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, "pejorative" is defined as "expressing disapproval". When I personally use the word "cult" I am referring to something of which I disapprove because I see it as being both unethical and excessively dangerous psychologically. That's what the cult critics of whom I am aware mean too. (However, confusion will arise because of the zillions of denotations and connotations of "cult".) Tanaats 01:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
How is the term opponent more "value-neutral" than critics? Andries 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
"Criticism", the reasoned evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of the object of inquiry, is considered something positive in modernity. Opponent has no such positive connotations. You can be an opponent of the death penalty, abortion, the New York Yankees, Whaling, democracy and so on: Nothing inherently positive or negative about an "opponent". Fossa?! 22:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No, that is only the specialized meaning of the word, not used in daily usage. Critic is in daily usage not a positive word. And besides there is nothing exclusive about opponent and critic. One can be an opponent and critic at the same time. Andries 23:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not a specialized meaning; in a modern context there is an implication of reason in criticism. Further, there is a subtle suggestion that there may well be something validly to criticize. Now in the case of cults, my personal opinion is that there is much to criticize. But it is nevertheless true that "opponent" is more neutral. I'm not sure I understand why some cult critics (especially certain Wikipedia editors - though not those in this section to whom I'm responding) try so hard to make their points that they go overboard and appear not to be objective and neutral; just presenting facts and being fair-minded should be enough when criticizing any group that exemplifies bad behavior. Using both words ("critics" and "opponents") would be unnecessarily awkward.-DoctorW 23:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I checked my dictionary and it does not mention the word reason or logic or something similar. Andries 23:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Reminds me of the argument somewhere (can't remember by whom and where), that there is nothing negative in claiming that ex-members "construct" their "atrocity stories".
"Opposition" is a black-and-white term. An opponent is just against something. A critic is able to weight, to see the grey shades. Thus, the term "critic" is more appropriate for people like me. But we've been through this for months elsewhere already. --Tilman 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You must have read that on talk page of Wikipedia where Zappaz (talk • contribs) , the proud self-admitted, cult apologist was telling this to me. I understand his point, but such sociological terminology that has a different meaning in daily usage should be avoided unless explicitly explained. Andries 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, it may be more appropriate (or desirable) as a characterization of you, but the issue under discussion is whether "opponent" is more neutral.-DoctorW 23:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You agree that "criticism" has a positive connotation in scientific usage , while "opposition" doesn't. Even if your excursus about everyday life language would be true (it isn't), the term "opponent" would be more neutral. Fossa?! 23:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I guess you are right. I more or less have the same dispute at talk:Mircea Eliade. Andries 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Tilman is right. "Opponent" is not a neutral term. Tanaats 01:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure. "Opponent" is pejorative. Like in "opponent of dictatorships", "opponent of child abuse" and, now it get's real bad: "Today's opponents of the Chargers (West Brom) are the KC Chiefs (Leeds United)." Fossa?! 01:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't understand Tilman to be saying that "opponent" was a pejorative. I understood him to be saying that "critic" carried the connotation of someone has a more deeply thought out and nuanced intellectual position than someone is an "opponent". Tanaats 03:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
So, we agree then: "Opponent" is value-neutral, while "critic" carries positive connotations. Therefore "opponent" is the more encyclopedic term. Fossa?! 12:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Not sure yet. Personally, I find it important that people make an informed decision by revealing the corpses in the closet of some NRMs. I do not write letters or make phone calls to get locations for meetings of NRMs cancelled or otherwise oppose NRMs, though I admit that some other apostates of my former NRM do this. I admit though that because of me a question was asked in the European Parliament about my former NRM. I think that divulging critical information is more the working method of a critic, not that of an opponent. Andries 12:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The way you use the term "critical information" here, only refers to negative criticism. Most self-declared cult critics actually do air only negative criticism. Try to find some positive criticism on any of the usual suspects sites: There is none. Fossa?! 13:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no requirement that criticism must include positive elements. But if needed, here is a positive element: scientology has never attacked its "ennemies" with nuclear weapons. This is very positive. Also positive is that scientologists do not slit the throats of their "ennemies". --Tilman 15:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Untrue, ex-folllowers of Sathya Sai Baba openly admit some aspects of the SSB movement that can be interpreted as positive on their critical websites. You have to search for it on the critical websites, but it is there. Andries 13:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No we don't "agree". Opponent is still a black-and white term in the context of cults, suggesting a lack of content, a fight until winning. Cult critics aren't out to "destroy" cults, they just want them to stop certain behaviour.
Your insistance of using this black-and white term even after being explained the problems for months is bad faith. --Tilman 13:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
On your premises, any term is a "black-and-white" term, since it involves a dichotomy: "critic" vs. "non-critic", and so on. What you describe is an "enemy". I would suggest that most self-declared "cult critics" are "cult enemies", but I am not writing that, since there are a few who level measured criticism. Fossa?! 13:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No, not all terms are "black and white". Some terms imply that there is a grey area. That is what I believe that Tilman is trying to emphasize.Tanaats 15:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Fossa, I definitely don't agree that "opponent" is value-neutral. Another way of expressing it is that "opponent" carries a negative connotation of lack of a deeply thought out and nuanced intellectual position. Tanaats 15:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That's simply not true. You can make reasoned criticism and come to the conclusion that opposition to a group/phenomenom is opportune. Fossa?! 15:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
For an example, NRM scholars would definitely not like being referred to as "opponents of the anti-cult movement". If given an either/or choice, they would much prefer the term "critics of the anti-cult movement". If we are to maintain NPOV, cult critics warrant the same level of respect. Tanaats 15:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does science really value objectivity and neutrality?

Fossa just got through saying "The fetishism of demanding a "citation" for each and every banality is a quite popular in Wikipedia spin doctoring. Find me a scientific article that water is wet!" Then Andries demands a citation that science really values objectivity and neutrality. Well, I provided one! Much of the book is about the topic, and can not be encapsulated in a quotation! If you don't trust the assertion that science values objectivity and neutrality, read the book. -DoctorW 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe that scientists say this about themselves, but I do not believe that the book states, something like, labels that question the objectivity, like "quacks" for doctors, "cult apologist" for religious scholars, "butchers" for surgeons are insulting. If it does not then the citation is a free interpretation of sources to support a doubtful statement which I do not think is a good idea on Wikipedia. If it does please show the quote here. Andries amended 00:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this is not a banality. Quite to the contrary, it is almost a banality to say that social scientists are divided on this issue. There are lengthy treatises about the possibility and the desirability of "objectivity" and "neutrality" w/i the (social) sciences. Probably the most famous statement in favor of "objectivity" is Max Weber's "'Objectivity' in social science and social policy". But even he is cautious about its attainability. Today, many feminists, Neo-Marxists (Frankfurt School and its successors) are patently opposed to "objectivity". You cannot simply drop the opinion of one psychological textbook as fact. Fossa?! 01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is the deleted statement we are talking about:
  • Because social science values objectivity and neutrality,(ref)Breakwell, G. M., Hammond, S. &Fife-Schaw, C. (Eds.). (1995). Research methods in psychology. London: Sage Publications.(/ref) the term is highly offensive.
Did either of you notice that I changed "scientists" to "science"? Science values objectivity and neutrality. This is undeniable. It is part of the definition of science. Whether scientists always can or do live up to this value is irrelevant, which I've mentioned already. Nevertheless, you both are still talking about scientists. I'm sorry, but I can't see even an iota of relevance in what was said immediately above to the issue of what is a scientific value. Fossa, why are you so opposed to the statement that you delete my sourced edit even though your stated reason is irrelevant to the content? -DoctorW 20:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You are drawing unsourced conclusions here, pulling assumptions from one source to assume something about an entirely different subject... Smee 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
I've just deleted the following from the Socrates article:
  • Socrates is a man
  • All men are mortal
  • Therefore, Soctrates is mortal.
It is an unsourced conclusion. -DoctorW 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at the edit history for the article Socrates and you did not do anything. So either you are mistaken, or this is some form of subtle violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, to which I will not participate in. Smee 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
DrW, you would have been quite correct to have deleted such a passage. Syllogisms are OR. Tanaats 17:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

DrW, the statement "Because social science values objectivity and neutrality, the term is highly offensive" is pure OR as it stands now, and is inadmissable. If you want to introduce this concept into the article, then you have to find an RS that actually directly asserts such. Even then you would have to say "<Such-and-so> writes that the term "cult apologist" is highly offensive because..." Tanaats 22:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RfC Time?

Is it time to take this out for comment to the larger community. This term is clearly pejorative yet "cult opponents" refuse to moderate their position. It is exactly analogous to my "nigger lover" above. "Cult", like "nigger", is a pejorative. When someone opposes "cults", they are not opposing sects, small religious communities, or "new religious movements" in general (the "harmless", non-pejorative possible meanings of the word "cult"); they are opposing what they see as evil, manipulative, dangerous organizations. So for them, calling a group a "cult" is pejorative. It might be deserved (or it might not) but it is still a pejorative. Calling someone a "cult apologist" is actually more pejorative than "nigger lover" because "nigger lover" simply implies that they support a group that the speaker dislikes while "cult apologist" says that they protect and defend an evil, manipulative, dangerous organization. A closer analogy to "cult apologist" would be "pedophile lover". How can "cult apologist" be anything but pejorative. Get real! --Justanother 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The asserted obvious truth of a proposition has nothing whatever to do with whether it is admissible to an article. Without support from an RS, the statement "nigger lover is pejorative" would also be OR. However, I am sure that many cites of RSs could be found to support that statement which, happily, would make it easily admissible as a supported statement.
If an RS can be found stating that "cult-apologist is a pejorative" then of course that would be admissible as well. Absent such a cite, however, the assertion is pure OR.
If OR were to be admitted into the article, the floodgates would open. Soon, this article would end up like the pitiful Mind control article. All of the massive amount of OR in that article is there because someone strongly felt that it was "obviously" true. Tanaats 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Cult apologist term

Is there supporting evidence in reputable sources to classify the term "cult apologist" as inherently pejorative, or simply descriptive? 20:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Other questions: What description of the term is supported by RS? How should we treat a term that is not clearly defined in RS sources? Do we need the sources to say "cult apologist is pejorative" or can we infer that from its usage? --Justanother 21:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dissent: The dispute is stated above in spun and POV terms. The dispute is not whether "cult apologist" is pejorative or not. The dispute is over whether such an assertion is admissible to the article without support from an RS. Tanaats 21:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not my intent to "spin" the statement of dispute. How is my statement a "spin? Feel free to edit it as I would like us to at least be on the same page as to what we are discussing. --Justanother 22:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previously involved parties

  • NOTE: - The question is not what the actual individual opinions are of the commentators coming from the RFC request. The issue is whether there are reputable sources that support this interpretation of the term. Smee 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment - Show me a non-POV source that even uses that term in a neutral manner. It is a term reinvented by "counter-cultists" to tar NRM scholars that they disagree with and that is its only usage - on heavily POV sites for that exact purpose. It is, by definition and usage, pejorative. See my analogies above. --Justanother 20:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Corollary - And if you cannot show me NPOV RS's that use the term then I think that this article should go away now. As the whole purpose of the article, IMO, is to forward propaganda --Justanother 21:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, let me get this straight, is anyone here saying the the use of the term "cult apologist" is not a pejorative? Because obviously it is. BTW, there are some sources used here that are dubious. If Mr X calls his political opponent Mr. Y to be "soft on terror" that is only the opinion of Mr. X. It will be OK, then, to describe Mr X's opinion of Mr. Y in the article about Mr. X, but not on Mr. Y's article, and neither in an article discussing terrorism. I would stubify this article, and remove all self-published sources, such as the ones by Kent, Hein, Ross, Hausner, and other protagonists in which they express opinions of third parties. Their views of others can be moved to their articles (if they have one, that is). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What is being said is that there is no RS to define it as such so to do so constitutes OR. --Justanother 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- The assertion that "cult apologist" is pejorative is OR. OR is inadmissible. Take a look at Mind Control. All of the massive amount of OR that is in there is there because someone felt that it was "obviously true". Is OR admissible if felt to be "obviously true"? If so, who is the final arbiter of what is "obviously true"? It seems to me that WP:OR was created specifically in order to completely eliminate the question of whether or not a statement is "obviously true". Tanaats 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I provided a source below. But what I raised above are bigger concerns, which you did not address. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral editors

  • Comment - Having studied religion in America, I have never encountered this term and I have a hard time seeing how it can be anything but pejorative. If a scholar, through objectively looking at the evidence, draws conclusions sympathetic to "cults," then they are "cult apologists"? Is that sort like saying that all Roman Catholic scholars are "Papist apologists" and all morally conservative Christian scholars are "Bigot Apologists"? I guess I am uncomfortable with where this would lead as a precedent for other similar articles. How about "Communist Apologists" for all democratic scholars, and "Facist Apologists" for all republican scholars? I will go and look through my references and see what I can find, but this is my first impression. Pastordavid 20:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, I find the division of this RfC helpful. I have found, on other RfCs, that the involved parties often dominate the comments, making it difficult to tell what is an "outside opinion" and what is an "involved party." Pastordavid 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. It is not norm but I am not sure there is a "norm". I did clean it up a bit. --Justanother 20:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Pastordavid, I accept that you find the statement pejorative. However, a statement conveying the idea that "the term 'cult apologist' is a pejorative" is OR. You've been around much longer than I have. Is OR admissible if it is "obviously true"? If so, who is the final arbiter of what is "obviously true"? Tanaats 21:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Guess who said this? The term 'cult apologist' is in fact frequently employed by critics of cults to devalue scholars who are deemed to be too sympathetic towards or tolerant of objectionable groups ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Answer: Benjamin Zablocki, Misunderstanding Cults" page 26. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
"Who said this" is completely irrelevant to my argument. OR is and has been inadmissible, However, you have found a quote from a notable scholar in an RS. The contents of such a quote are clearly admissible, as I have clearly stated a number of times.
OR is still completely inadmissible, however by your research you have turned OR into a supported proposition.
No, I do not consider this to be nit-picking. Again, I suggest everyone take a read of the Mind Control article to see what OR can do to an article. Again, everyone inserting their OR there felt that it was "obviously true". It is best for Wikipedia to take WP:OR as it is written.
I suggest that the RfC can be closed now. Tanaats 21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds a bit hasty - what is your hurry? Justanother (talk • contribs) 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
Just saying "sounds a bit hasty" would have been sufficient. We're both entitled to our opinions on the matter. Tanaats 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Justanother 02:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it is felt that to say that "the term 'cult apologist' is a pejorative" is OR, then I would say it another way. As a general rule, the academically responsible route is to refer to groups by the name they use self-referentially. As a wikipedia policy, "When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use." It is not incumbant upon anyone to prove that it is pejorative - it is incumbant on those who want to use the term to prove that these scholars use the term "cult apologist" to describe themselves. The prevelence of the term cult apologist among other scholars does not mean that we can use the term to describe anyone in this article; further down, the same policy states: "Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders." -- Pastordavid 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • academically responsible route: Are you pulling our leg? This is WIKIPEDIA, the turf of zealot activists, not of academics. Fossa?! 02:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
That is unfair, Fossa,. If you believe that, why are you editing WP? Given enough eyeballs, POV pushers do not have a chance in WP in the long run. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I edit WP for entertainment purposes and because I am on this Don Quixote mission to give (social) science a voice in Quackpedia, which by many is considered a reliable encyclopedia. There are some topics, say Holocaust or Baseball, where POV pushers indeed have no chance. On the topics, where I know most -- new religious movements, social movements, nationalism, and former Yugoslavia, to name some -- POV pushers have a field day. Fossa?! 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am well aware that "academically responsible" is not enough of a rationale for everyone on Wikipedia, which is why I also listed the relevent wikipedia policy. I am also well aware of those who are on wikipedia primarily to push a POV. However, unless you intend that statement to be about my comments here (which is how it reads as a response to my comment), might I suggest that comments stay about the content of the article in question -- and not about the merits or deficencies of wikipedia as a whole. Pastordavid 05:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I actually was not referring to you in particular in my statement, but I was making a general statement about Wikipedia: Most people are here to advance their cause, not to create an encyclopedia. I am no exception to that rule, I advance my cause (loosely "academic objectivity"), which coincidentally is congruent with the cause of an encyclopedia. Trouble is, most others' causes do not coincide with the goal of an encyclopedia. Fossa?! 23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I gotta go with the idea that "cult apologist" is at least USUALLY pejorative. To my limited experience, it seems like it's always pejorative, in fact-- but i can't rule out the fact that maybe there is someone out there who self-applies the term. --Alecmconroy 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, as a result of the RfC we have already replaced the previous OR syllogism with solid quotes from notable scholars. Tanaats 18:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, the present wording seems a reasonable compromise. I have deliberately not read the discussion, and am giving my view on coming to the article for the first time, which is what readers will do. It seems clear and fair. There are 2 meanings, and it distinguishes.DGG 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It has occurred to me that the term "cult apologist" is mixed; that is, "cult" and "apologist" are very different terms and should be taken into account separately. Despite the relatively warm definitions Dictionary.com gives "cult" initially (Def. 1-5), I have only heard the word "cult" applied in a non-pejorative way by outdated texts. These days, it is an absolute insult (def. 6 and 8) to call someone's religious organization a cult. I desperately wish everyone would use that word in its original intention and meaning, but for now that simply isn't how the word is used.
When I first heard the word "apologist," I thought it was a bit pejorative because I was taking the root "apolog*" literally as "to express sorrow for, or excuse." What truly religious person would be sorry for what they believe in? Of course, apologist actually means "a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc." With that in mind, it was no longer a shock for me to encounter people who proudly call themselves apologists in behalf of their faith.
I'm just saying.
V-Man737 09:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment- pejorative, not descriptive. Plain and simple. futurebird 23:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of sources in this article

I would want to take this out of the RfC as it is about a different issue.

I am of the opinion that there are many sources used in the article that are dubious and non compliant with our content policies.

An example: If Mr X publishes an article in which calls his political opponent Mr. Y to be "soft on terror" that is only the opinion of Mr. X. It will be OK, as per WP:RS and WP:V, to describe Mr X's opinion of Mr. Y in the article about Mr. X, but not on Mr. Y's article, and neither in an article discussing terrorism in general. OTOH, if Mr. X's opinion of Mr. Y is described in a third-party, neutral and reputable source (i.e. not a source associated with Mr. X, for example) then we could use that source to describe Mr X's viewpoints on Mr. Y, but not without such source being available.

In order for this article to remain compliant, I would remove all self-published statements, such as the ones by Kent, Hein, Ross, Hausner, and other protagonists in which they express their opinions of third parties. Their views of others can be moved to their articles (if they have one, that is).

The result will be a more informative, less polarized article that what we have now. Your comments will be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. And to take it a step further. We would not create an article entitled "Soft on terror" which "defines" the term and assigns it to whomever Mr. Y and his cronies care to assign it to. --Justanother 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who "Hausner" is, but if it is me - my work in this field is mostly source research, i.e. don't bother with my opinions/comments. I'm more an activist/critic type of guy. Use the sources (newspapers, experts) that I quote as references. However Kent and Ross are definitively experts and reliable sources. About Hein - difficult to say, but he has an excellent website and is very knowledgeable. --Tilman 20:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperlinking an article title to a web site

Hi all, I have a question about this edit. I don't think that the issue here is whether or not Ross' site is an RS. We can leave that discussion for another day. What I see as the issue here is whether or not a hyperlinked article title, especially one buried deep in a citation, must always be pointed to an RS. Thoughts? Tanaats 04:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The RS is the magazine or newspaper itself. It does not have to be accessible on the internet. There is sometimes a viewpoint on wikipedia that the internet contains sufficient material to create good articles but that is far from the truth. A diligent researcher would go to the library and order the materials and reference them directly, not some possibly altered version on a POV site. I am not accusing anyone and I am as non-diligent as most. Yes, everything must point to an RS if in the least bit controversial and be capable of pointing if not at all controversial (water is wet stuff). For me, pointing at a "copy" archived elsewhere (and in vio of copyright laws, most likely) is not needed nor proper but some of us do it and call it a "courtesy copy" as if it is saving the reader the trouble of visiting the library when it is actually to save us the trouble. But there is another point here. The Strait Times is not making that statement - it is quoting an attorney that is quoting another Milwaukee paper that was quoting an unnamed source (Ross, I presume). Due diligence would be to look at the Milwaukee Journal and reference that. For now I will clarify the statement. --Justanother 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to think further about the "POV site" issue, but I definitely see your point about the copyright issue. Thanks for your response. Tanaats 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Melton admitted the statement from the Milwaukee article, so what's the problem? The article is from December 3, 1988, the title is "New religious movements nothing to fear, expert says". Get it from Nexis if you can. I have only an excerpt. --Tilman 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool, then you can directly reference the Milwaukee paper and drop all the middlemen and no need to point at Ross for that at all. --Justanother 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, we don't have that article on the web. I will try to ask someone who may have access on NEXIS. But the article from Singapore references an attorney quoting it, and Melton admit his quote was correct.

This is the excerpts that I have:

Scholars of religion have long been divided over how to define and respond to cults. Melton said that what many call cults are simply non-conventional religions that deviate from Christian orthodoxy. Melton said Jim Jones' Peoples Temples had been transformed by anti-cult groups and the media into "the definitive horror story." "The Peoples Temple was a congregation in a Christian denomination recognized by the National Council of Churches," he said. "This wasn't a cult. This was a respectable, mainline Christian group."

"Overwhelmingly, so-called cults have a positive impact on people's lives. The worst thing that most of these groups can do is waste your time," said J. Gordon Melton, director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion, based in Santa Barbar, Calif....Melton said that what many call cults are simply non-conventional religions that deviate from Christian orthodoxy. Melton said Jim Jones' Peoples Temple had been transformed by anti-cult groups and the media into "the definitive cult horror story." The Peoples Temple was a congregation in a Christian denomination recognized by the National Council of Churches," he said. "This wasn't a cult. This was a respectable mainline Christian group." Kisser said that Melton was "ill-informed." "Melton is a cult apologist. He has a long association of defending the practices of destructive cults," she said...Jehovah's Witnesses, accepted by many scholars as a normal part of the US religious landscape, has been targeted by one-fourth of all anti-cult groups, Melton said. "It's a shame. We know they're harmless, and yet they are constantly the target of distorted attacks," he said...."The anticult movement has created hysteria and done a disservice to the American people," he said....Anti-cult groups are largely orchestrated by professionals who prey upon the fears of parents, Melton said.

--Tilman 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that goes to my comments above about the limitation of relying exclusively on the internet. Not sure myself what is the point of that section anyway; "this one feels this guy is a blah blah"; "so does this one"; "the guy says he doesn't like to be called a bad name". That is my feeling about most of the article - it exists to forward opinion and propaganda and violation of WP:BLP and the article may well have been started as a troll. What is the point of this article? --Justanother 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I believe I've heard this BLP argument before. This article isn't a bio, it defines the term "cult apologist" with examples, from academic sources, cult experts, and media articles. --Tilman 21:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
So it is kinda like this article except that one does include the "examples"? --Justanother 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

FYI - Fossa, Tanaats, & Jossi, you are all approaching the three revert rule. No one appears to be there quite yet, but today's edit war obviously isn't getting the article anywhere. How about stepping away from the article until tomorrow. -- Pastordavid 05:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! Tanaats 06:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not know what you are talking about. I have not editwarred on this article. Please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quasi-Libel by user:Fossa

I consider the comment in this edit [1] to be quasi-libel - it contains two lies: 1) that the quote is misrepresented, 2) that I might have done it. Please keep these types of comment to the german wikipedia. --Tilman 20:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Ross a reliable source

About this edit: [2]: Rick Ross is a reliable source, this has been discussed before. He is a well known cult expert, he is frequently interviewed and quoted by the media, he even lectures in universities. And no, that he hasn't published in academic journals doesn't make him "unreliable". --Tilman 20:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He's a "known cult expert". Yeah, right. Who considers him a cult expert? What makes him an "expert"? Does he have an academic degree in social science? Does he publish in academic journals about the topic? Fossa?! 22:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Your implied definition of "expert" is somewhat unique. Tanaats 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, on Quackypedia, it's a unique concept that (social) science actually creates knowledge. I'm afraid, the outside world still believes more in UC Santa Barbara than some self-styled intstitute by Rick Ross. Fossa?! 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Your definition would mean that no one who wasn't a published academic should ever be called an "expert" on anything. That dog doesn't hunt. Tanaats 23:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Depends on the topic: If there are no academic sources, one might consider, for instance, journalists. but not activists like Ross. Fossa?! 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, that would mean that someone could be an expert as long as they were not "overly" (and "overly" is yet to be defined) active in a cause, but would automatically lose their expert status if the did become "overly active". That dog doesn't hunt either. But we'll just go around in circles on this. I'll bow out of this discussion now. Tanaats 00:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You deleted the paragraph with the explanation "not a reliable source." He has been characterized as "cult expert"/"cult watcher" often in the media (ABC, CBS, newspapers): therefore it's safe to state that he is a reliable source. Raymond Hill 22:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup, in the world that values FOX News over academia, he might be considered an "expert". BTW: "cult watcher" doesn't sound much like an expert to me. Fossa?! 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Raymond did not mention FOX, not academia. --Tilman 06:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
All material in this article related to Mr. Ross is self-published, and as such it cannot be considered a RS. See WP:V and WP:RS as it relates to self-published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you still believe that most editors here follow those guidelines or are interested in building an encyclopedia? Fossa?! 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I do hope so. Assume good faith. Otherwise it would be better to give up right now and stop editing. Not an option, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, here's my opinion about WP:AGF. I'm also quite addicted to editing, but I really feel like Don Quixote. I follow the French, Italian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias and it seems hopeless to me. The English and German ones (the two biggest) are actually worse than the French or Italian ones, which have yet to attract more zealots. Oh, well, I guess, this is off-topic. Fossa?! 00:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources of dubious reliability and self-published sources

Time to take the bull by the horns. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources and please note that this is policy, not guideline.

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

There is not really much to be said here. The policy and the intent of the policy is clear. Rick Ross may be an "expert" but that does not make his website a "reliable source" because he is not a "third-party"; he is deeply invested in the conflict. His site is dubious in that there is no error-checking between him and the published material.

"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." [emphasis added]

We do not have to invent any policy here. Our topic is, by far, not the first conflict on wikipedia and cult critics are, by far, not the first dubious and self-published sources that editors sought to use in a controversial article. Every single bit of this article that relies on such self-published sources needs to be removed and replaced with such "reliable, third-party published" material as is available. --Justanother 03:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. As I've understood it so far, it's acceptable to say "so-and-so says something-or-other", giving a reference to their self-published website as evidence that they did in fact say exactly that. Tanaats 04:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Refer to the policy and also to the guideline, WP:RS. The idea is that if a reliable third-party did not quote the person's statement then it cannot be used. Think of what the alternative would be; highly biased personalities could say anything about anyone on their personal and low-volume website and have that propaganda furthered by prominent placement on one of the most trafficked websites on the net. So if someone that has managed to get himself named as, say, an "expert" on 9-11 in a few cases and publications were to say on his personal site that, for example, George Bush made a deal with Bin Laden to bomb the Twin Towers and part of that deal was that the US wouldn't try too hard to catch him; if some "expert" said that on his personal site but no reliable third-party would touch it do you think that that statement has claim to a prominent place in an encyclopedia?? My point is simply that if a reliable RS quoted a claim of "cult apologist" then that would be the minimum requirement for seeing that claim here. There is NO reason for us to be referencing heavily biased sites - to repeat However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." So if ain't nowhere else it don't go here. Think of it this way. It has to go from biased source >>> RS >>> wikipedia. We use the RS as a substitute for peer review. To take anything, anything at all, directly from the biased source violates that basic principle. The only exception being what the source says about itself (not about others) and then with caution. --Justanother 04:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the elaboration. I think that I'm following your argument but I want to confirm. Are you saying, essentially, that no one can be quoted in Wikipedia unless their statement has been previously quoted in an RS? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding Tanaats 05:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what I am saying, the only exception being cautiously using statements about themselves. Think of the alternative. It is also the basic premise of wikipedia that, lacking peer review, only material already published in a reliable error-checked source can be used here. --Justanother 05:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I am dubious. Primary sources seem to be used throughout Wikipedia without being echoed by secondary sources. It seems to me that we would have to delete much, or even most, of the encyclopedia. Tanaats 06:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
This sounds weird. It would mean, we couldn't quote a paper by Einstein, unless its about Einstein himself. This "argument" sounds like Wikilawyering. --Tilman 07:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
On the Einstein, don't you think "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so" very much applies? We would not use his unpublished writings not supported by published material as RS, that is exactly right. --Justanother 13:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that Wikipedia guidelines on RSs would be intended to exclude unpublished statements by Einstein even if they had not been echoed in a secondary source. Tanaats 18:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly feel that that is exactly what policy on RS is intended to exclude. There can be no special "Einstein-exemption". I am referring here to non-peer reviewed material that is unpublished or self-published. As Einstein is notable in himself, such material would have a place in an article about him but would be used with only the most extreme of caution in an article about his science. --Justanother 00:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel Strongly, but I know that Justanother is right. Anybody with a basic training in scientific research would know this banality. Fossa?! 00:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Rick Ross has indeed a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". That is the reason he has so often won in court, and is so often quoted by the media, and can lecture in universities. --Tilman 06:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

But he is not a third-party and he is self-published mostly. Don't just use part of the statement, please. --Justanother 13:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
No, he's also often quoted by the media. --Tilman 16:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, now you are getting it. To the degree that he is quoted by the media those quotes can be used here as there is a 3rd party filter in place in those cases. Such would be attributed to him, of course, as his opinions, and not as "facts" as, doubtless, that is how they would be represented in a responsible 3rd party RS. Get it now? All POV material must come from a 3rd party, never ever from the POV itself directly. --Justanother 18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
So what? Tom Cruise is often quoted by the media on Scientology. Does that make him a WP:RS on Scientology? No, of course not. Fossa?! 16:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, to show how wacky he is. --Tilman 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
When was the last time Mr. Ross lectured in a University? What do you know about his expert testimony in civil cases? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe this was already discussed in Rick Ross a few months ago. But see also [3][4][5] --Tilman 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The wonderful nature of using wikipedia as it is intended to be used is that we do not have to evaluate Mr. Ross' credentials. The 3rd-party RS does that and they print his opinion based on their evaluation but please note that they alway label it as opinion. We only need follow their lead and use the 3rd-party RS as source exclusively. Despite all you see to the contrary, that is the basic wikipedia policy. --Justanother 18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with both your interpretation and proposed application of WP:RS. Tanaats 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Amen. I am glad you have mastered all the Wikilingo, and that you "respectfully" disagree. Congrats. I am not that polite, but at least, I follow WP:RS. Which, naturally, is not a policy POV editors are particularly interested in. But, don't despair WP:IAR AND you are polite. Fossa?! 23:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

OK, so now we have something to work with. Regarding the "advertising" of lists of nigger-lovers "cult apologists". I feel that using this article to promote non-RS propaganda is a misuse of this encyclopedia and a fundamental violation of just about every policy here (except of course IAR). The fact that these guys maintain lists at all is of no interest to this encyclopedia if it is not even notable enough to have been mentioned in an RS. See how it works. Appearance in an RS would be the barest minimum for notability. That is why it get a {{fact}} tag. To then exactly point at the specific link to the list adds the addition of WP:EL vio. --Justanother 13:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I would argue that both these websites are self-published primary sources, and as such can only be used if "it does not involve claims about third parties". See WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, please see a related discussion I am having at Talk:L. Ron Hubbard#ironic and gratuitous accusations. The basic idea is the same - "systematic disregard in these articles of the basic principle that wikipedia is built on." The relevant arguments are in the latter half of the discussion. --Justanother 16:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

These two websites have been referred by other sources. Anton Hein by Doug Cowan, and Rick Ross by many other sources. This has all be discussed before. What Fossa does is just deleting sources of a statement. So either you remove the entire segment (if you're able to come up with an argument), or you let it stay like it is, with the link to the source. --Tilman 16:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That is no problem as the bit is obviously unsourced, non-RS, vio of WP:EL, etc. etc. The only "rule" it did not violate was WP:IAR. --Justanother 17:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
All this is of course not true, but I'm to busy to count my reverts and will let it stay for some time now, and see if someone else will revert it. --Tilman 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war 2

I don't intend to edit war. But there is more material to work with in "Other definitions". So a few think that they can include any non-RS propaganda that they wish because they are simply reporting "opinions". Opinions worth reporting show up in RS - that is the point, the point, the point (I am trying to get a point over). Those opinions ("definitions") have to go to RS before they come here. --Justanother 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your point. Tanaats 21:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
To address your actual point. I think that Hein is a prominent enough figure in the "cult wars" that his opinions are quotable in the article. And his site is indeed an RS for the purpose of supporting a mention of his opinions. Tanaats 21:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Tilman is quite notable in this context as well. Tanaats 21:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
No, biased opinions of biased people on their biased websites don't come directly here just because they are their opinions. Of course, they are their opinions. We all have opinions. Some of us proclaim our opinions quite loudly and frequently. We do not get to have our opinions enshrined here until that specific opinion is first enshrined elsewhere by a reliable source that can be assumed to have some degree of neutrality, responsibility, and error-checking. Self-published, by definition, don't make the grade there. --Justanother 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Your expression "biased opinions of biased people on their biased websites" does nothing more than to reveal your own personal bias. This is not intended to be a slam.
I know of no guideline that states that an opinion has to be enshrined in a secondary source before it can be admitted into an article. If such a guideline exists, please refer me to it. Tanaats 22:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course I have my own bias and I can readily recognize bias also. I also happen to think that there are "biased opinions of biased people on their biased websites" on my side of the fence too but there is little chance of those being mistaken for an RS on this site. So I am happy if the same standard is applied on the "other side". And being biased does not make one "wrong" or "right" but simply implies that they have chosen an entrenched partisan position rather than a "pan-determined" viewpoint that tries to see the truth in both positions. As far as your question, please see my discussions here and in the L. Ron Hubbard page that I also reference here. That very point, previously published in an RS, is the basis of wikipedia. --Justanother 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I really don't know how we can have an article on any "cult"-related topic without admitting bias, including the biases held by NRM scholars (it is itself a biased position to hold that their theories are "pan-determined"). With a highly contentious topic such as "cults", the issue is not at all whether bias should be represented in the article, the issue is how to represent all major biases in a balanced manner.
I'm afraid that I will not do the research on your previous writings that you suggest.
We are going in circles. I will make one final comment, which is to repeat that there is no guideline that says that only opinions echoed in a secondary source can be admitted to a Wikipedia article. Now, in order to stop the circling, I will stop commenting on this topic unless something new comes up. Tanaats 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: not looking at my other stuff. Don't blame you for that! I doubt I would if the roles were reversed. No prob. --Justanother 03:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war 3

BabyDweezil, you appear to me to be making up your own guidelines. Self-published sources are just hunky-dory when used to document someone's opinions, as we are certainly doing in this case. Tanaats 01:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no guideline saying there is an obligation to document anyone's opinions, and even less so if they are only self published. BabyDweezil 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multi-tasking: the article title again

I hope you'all will forgive me "multi-tasking" on this article a bit but I have concluded that the term "cult apologist", in addition to its other obvious faults, is not the notable aspect of this topic. An article on "cult apologist" would not be notable as per WP:N. What is likely notable, however, is the dispute that underlies the name-calling. As no-one acted on my previous request for you'all to come up with a better name I will take a more active role, if you don't mind. The new title would be about the Dispute over scholarship. We should frame the title in NPOV terms. I could go with Disputes over NRM scholarship. Thoughts and suggestions, please? --Justanother 17:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, "cult apologist" is the word used by the relevant public for people like Melton, Shupe & co. Renaming it would be the same as submitting a deletion request. --Tilman 17:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
But it is not notable as it is mentioned in RS only in reference to the larger dispute which is the true notable subject. You can have "cult apologist" redirect and it would do that automatically on the rename anyway so it would still show up. My actual feeling is that if it has to stay "cult apologist" then it totally needs a WP:AfD but I am trying to not be a WP:DICK and I recognize that there is a notable issue here - the dispute, not the term. --Justanother 17:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cult expert Rick Ross

This is a recent article: [6]

Gerard-Prendergast's effectiveness as a teacher depends on whether he denounces the group's beliefs or is a cult apologist, according to Rick A. Ross, an international cult expert based in New Jersey. He has studied controversial groups and interviewed former members for 25 years.

"The question is, how is this teacher influencing his students?" Ross asked. "Is he in a role as a cult apologist, minimizing the damage they do, apologizing for their behavior, minimizing what the group has done?"

So this has all: Rick Ross as "international cult expert", and the word "cult apologist", and an explanation of the word. --Tilman 21:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfect, then you can use that quote as clarification of what Ross means when he calls someone a "cult apologist" if you don't already have good RS for that (calls them that as reported in RS sources of course, not on his website). Good find. That is how wikipedia is supposed to work! --Justanother 21:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
A small local newspaper is not a reliable source for determining someone's expertise. Ross' status as a "cult expert" is self proclaimed and occasionally repeated by local press outlets. Ross is the source of that information. Come up with a scholarly source wherein real experts (in any field!) indicate that Ross is a colleague. (take your time looking :) ) BabyDweezil 21:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you look at Rick Ross, this has more references. Plus, don't make it look as if you're setting the rules here (reminds me of Fossa, who said in the german wikipedia that the Washington Post cannot be used as a source if an article is in the local section). That Rick Ross is a cult expert is not really in doubt, and has been discussed before. I just wanted to show a very recent example. --Tilman 22:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not constantly misrepresent my edits: AFAIR I stated that the mentioning of an incident on some backpages of the Washington Post does not make the incident notable from an encyclopedic POV. It's painfully obvious that Ross is not an academic scholar or otherwise RS. It's debatable, if he has enough clout to be considered a major opinion leader. Since this is Wikipedia, not an encyclopedia, it's suffiecient for a quack to be widely known to make him notable. Ross is not widely known. Fossa?! 22:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Ross is one of the major figures in the context of the subject matter of this article. Tanaats 22:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe read his wikipedia entry and learn a bit. And thank you for confirming that I did indeed represent your "Washington Post argument" correctly :-) --Tilman 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source. And you are, once again unable to present a diff-link that would support your allegations about me. Fossa?! 12:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You know the diff - it is on your german feedback page. Plus you admitted it right here. I brought this up just as an example how people try to prevent well-known (but not liked) information from being used, by claiming that some source isn't reliable. About Rick Ross - I told you to read the references. Unless of course, you think that the 46 references in the Rick Ross article suddenly become "unreputable" when mentioned in Wikipedia. --Tilman 16:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Tilman, you are doing the same thing Ross does--making a proclamation of expertise. Please supply a scholarly reference that affirms Ross' expertise in ANY field in the social sciences. Newspapers do not confer expert status. You could, in the appropriate context, cite a newspaper as having referred to Ross as an expert, but you cannot use a newspaper to state that he is one. BabyDweezil 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be going around and around on this. Please cite a guideline stating that a person cannot be deemed an expert unless declared to be such in a scholarly reference. Note that if there is such a guideline then we will probably need to slash and burn throughout much of Wikipedia. Tanaats 22:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You're building an amusing strawman. Nobody has claimed that Ross is a social scientist. He is an expert on cults, this is not in dispute. He has testified in courts, he had given lectures at universities, etc. I'm sure you know all this, don't you? So I shouldn't spend time to tell you this. Have a nice day. Additionally, I suggest you rent the movie "My Cousin Vinny", it has a very good layman legal explanation what an "expert" is. --Tilman 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Any statements of expertise, need to be attributed to a the source making that claim. In particular when a person does not have scholarly or any other type of credentials. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did provide sources characterizing Rick Ross as "expert", including a recent one. Plus, he has been admitted as expert in court. --Tilman 07:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But the main issue here is that self-published sources (Hein's, Tilman's and Ross's) cannot be used to make claims about named third parties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Then we couldn't use any expert at all (see also my Einstein Argument somewhere). For starters, we could remove everything in articles that uses Hadden's website as source. (Which is a good idea, he's been dead for years but his website still exists) --Tilman 07:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that Hadden was an established academic (University professor), who worked on the topic. The others mentioned have no such credentials. But, I agree that Hadden's website is indeed an overused source, simply because it is so readily available. He edited is with it's students and thus, wherever possible, more reliable sources should be used. Fossa?! 12:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Rick Ross is an established cult expert. He lectured at universities and testified as expert witness. Hadden, on the other hand, has been discredited when the infamous memo surfaced. --Tilman 16:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
And I am sure the Civil Case against Ross did nothing to discredit him. Hadden is till an academic subject to peer review. He can be wrong. His theories are subject to non-acceptance by the scientific community. Nevertheless Haddan is an academic. Ross is not. Ross is not subject to any peer review. He is not a reliable source. I doubt if he reviews the scientific literature on the subject he is talking about John196920022001 11:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You realize, i hope, the untenable double standard you are advocating here. Ross takes in tens of thousands of dollars a year from people with a hostility to purported cults, and his continued income is predicated on the ongoing public vilification of the broadest possible number of groups, primarily through biased and selective coverage on his website. Yet he is "an established cult expert." Hadden, on the other hand, is "discredited" for his contacts with the "other side." BabyDweezil 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Utter misrepresentation of Eileen Barker

In the section "Allegations of financial motivations" the article had said:

Eileen Barker has stated publicly that scholars should accept "their hospitality (be it a cup of tea or an expenses-paid conference)"[16].

The actual full quote from her article (with out of context misrepresented words highlighted) is: The NRMs we study are likely to want us to take their side - several of them have actually approached social scientists because they believed that, even if we do not do a "whitewash", we shall at least be fairer to them than most other constructors (Barker 1984:15; 1995:176). To a greater or lesser extent, we have been subjected to "love-bombing", hints of eternal damnation and/or emotional blackmail. Such techniques tend to be counter-suggestive for seasoned researchers, and despite the fact that some NRMs may try to convert us, we are unlikely to start promoting their beliefs, proclaiming Moon the messiah or Berg an Endtime prophet. Nonetheless, the very fact that they give us time, that we accept their hospitality (be it a cup of tea or an expenses-paid conference), might make us feel beholden to them - but then, we might feel equally or more beholden to their parents and others whom we also meet in the course of our investigations - and, perhaps, to society as a whole. Certainly, the fact that we are fellow human beings means that as we get to know those whom we are studying as individuals we may make friends (or, conversely, it may generate antagonisms). We may come to feel protective and when we see them attacked unfairly come to their defence. There is nothing wrong in this if we are merely introducing into the scene an accurate and balanced version of the NRM reality, but what would be reprehensible according to the canons of science is if, feeling bound by friendship or loyalty to "our" NRM, we promote what we know from our research to be a biased version of the truth.

This selective out of context misquoting is being removed--comments welcomed. BabyDweezil 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One might indeed write it differently - that she claims that "scholars" could accept favours might still report accurately.
(But isn't it amusing that its the "scholars" who accept favours, e.g. Barker and Melton, are the ones who report positively about cults?) --Tilman 16:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
What an incredible bit of disingenuous "spin"! I'd like to see who put that there. --Justanother 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Good find, BabyDweezil, there are many of these spins in related articles. Shameful, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Good find indeed. I have added her full sentence, to provide context for this. Smee 18:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
I added a bit more so as to convey her unquivocal opposition to biased research per the source you included. I am also removing the following distorted statement:
Barker was called a "cult adviser" in London's The Daily Telegraph[18]
The phrase appeared in the headline without reference to any individual, and nowhere in the article is Barker "called a "cult adviser"" in the sense meant by whoever put this in is trying to convey here (as an adviser to a cult). In fact, if you read the article, its clear its about a clash between people who advise ABOUT cults, not on behalf of one. Just read the the full text of this brief article which clearly shows the Telegraph is not labeling or charging or calling anyone a "cult adviser," but reporting on a dispute between TWO people who advise about cults. BabyDweezil 19:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody with more time should try to find who put this in and then spank him/her slightly :) Once again, this shows that non-web sources should at least temporarly be scanned or photographed, to make sure that the source is correct. --Tilman 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, lets not forget what policies usually do apply to public servants in western countries. They aren't allowed to accept any gifts. Period. Because even small gifts results in "liking" / "trusting" the one who made the gifts. At best, what Eileen Barker is saying is very naive. Especially considering that some "scholars" generally distrust the people who are critical toward cults. And if you add to this, the infamous participant observation "research" technique, the "cult apologist" result is no surprise. --Tilman 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You are very wrong in this statement "what policies usually do apply to public servants in western countries. They aren't allowed to accept any gifts. Period." Policies on that vary greatly with the individual agency and with time. Just in this month US Congress passed laws limiting gifts from lobbyists but there is still plenty of gifts and "contributions" to go around.[7] That is one small example (and yes, elected officials are "public servants" but I can show you varying policy with respect to lower level officials also). I hope you apply greater research when writing materials for these articles! --Justanother 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the relevant point is that we shouldn't be so naive as to think that Wikipedia editors arent going to misrepresent and misquote sources in order to push a particular POV. BabyDweezil 19:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Please keep this page to discuss the article, Tilman, and not our opinions. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not related?

How does this

Eileen Barker was criticized by Tory Home Office minister Tom Sackville in the article "Cult advisers in clash over clampdown", in London's The Daily Telegraph[25].

relate to the usage of the term "cult apologist". Since some want this article to be about that and not about the dispute over "scholarly opinions" I guess that we should not have stuff in here not related to the term. Unless some think this is the place to publish every complaint about every subject and then I guess we go and find complaints against Ross and the other character. --Justanother 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Smeelgova and I have fixed that text (Thanks, Smee). It is now close to the source and accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you too Jossi. Nice to see we can work in-sync from time-to-time... Smee 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, that is nice work. And it is nice to see the article cleaning up , too! BTW, did that guy really say that all NRM's are cults?? And if you don't agree with him you are a "cult apologist" or something?? That is priceless! Also re:

Besides, I imagine Fair was disappointed not to get our funding

You might either clarify what "Fair" means (I have no idea) or remove that bit. Thanks. --Justanother 19:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

FAIR = Family Aktion Information and Rescue. --Tilman 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kent Krebs article

The Kent Krebs article is accusing these "scholars" exactly of the things described in this article. It doesn't matter whether the (non "academic") term "cult apologist" is used, or another term, or no term at all. The "Skeptic" article covers the topic described here. --Tilman 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. This article is about the term and the usage of the term. --Justanother 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe another word should be used instead of "characterize as", since it might suggest that the exact term was used. Keywords: "biased studies", "collusion". --Tilman 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Justanother is correct, Kent and Krebs do not use this slur word, therefor, their argument is seriously misrepresented, if they are referred to here. Anyways the Skeptic is not a WP:RS. Fossa?! 22:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you ever read that publication? --Tilman 06:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I read that publication. That doesn't make it a WP:RS, though. Fossa?! 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] critic vs. opponent

Once again, Fossa has replaced "critic" with "opponent". And as usual, I've reverted it. In the german wikipedia (where he has tried this for several months now), Fossa recently came up with a new "theory": that "critics" means that it is "rational", and since there is proof that the "opposition" is rational, it can't be called "criticism".

My answer is that a priori, an adult human being is rational, unless he is attacked by a shark or fleeing from a fire. One doesn't have to prove that a party in an argument is "rational", one has to prove that he is irrational. --Tilman 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your theory is not even advanced by the most hardcore rational choice theorists. They just claim that the assumption that everyone follows rationally his or her own self-interest will yield good theoretical.
What is more, criticism is considered to be a rational endeavor. You can easily be a critic and an opponent. However, you would have to demonstrate that all opponents are also "critics" and to date no WP:RS has stipulated that. "Opponent" is a value neutral term, which leaves the question about criticsm open. Fossa?! 17:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, this argument may well be above my head (I get very nervous when anyone says "a priori") but I will tell you what I find troubling. Calling these guys "cult critics" clearly implies that what they are criticizing are "cults" when in actual fact they criticize NRMs in general. So I do not think calling them "cult critics" or "opponents of cults" matter-of-factly can ever be NPOV. At best I would call them "self-proclaimed opponents of cults" or "critics of what they allege are cults". Sorry if it sounds awkward but I think it is an important point and perhaps it can be done better. Ipso facto. --Justanother 17:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
No, they don't criticize "NRMs in general". You are speaking in generalities. For example, there are many NRMs that I don't criticize. This is easy, since there are thousands, and I focus on maybe 5-10 only. --Tilman 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
As you said, you focus on 5-10. Fossa?! 17:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
In colloquial parlance, "cult" is pejorative, although there are some value-neutral sociological concepts of cults. However, most self-declared "cult critics" are blissfully unaware of these sociological definitions, and they certainly do not employ them. You are right “opponnents of NRM” would be the proper term. Fossa?! 17:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The world is not centered around sociology. So there is no need that ordinary people start to used (alleged) sociological terms. --Tilman 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. And since in colloquial speech, "cult" is pejorative, it is not a suitable term for an ancyclopedia. Fossa?! 17:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
By that "logic", we should also no longer use the term "racist". Lets use the term "critic of the philosophy of multiculturalism" instead , and also change the article title. --Tilman 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Just that everybody understands this allusion: I wrote a short little article on Todd Gitlin on the German Wikipedia, where I called Gitlin a critic of the philosophy of multiculturalism, which he is. Of course, he's far from being a racist (quite the opposite), but that's the kind of obfuscating of arguments Tilman usually engages in. Fossa?! 19:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you deny that cult critics are rational human beings, and you insist on using that black-and-white term. --Tilman 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not "deny" that so-called "cult critics" are rational human beings. I make (in the article, that is) no judgement about the rationality of their arguments. You do. Fossa?! 17:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you do, by claiming that there is no evidence that they are rational. Of course, I could also say that there is no evidence that your arguments are rational - I wonder if you'd like that. --Tilman 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, I say there is no WP:RS that claims that all "cult critics" all act rationally. Nor is there any WP:RS that claims that all "cult critics" act irrationally. The term "opponent" makes no claims one way or the other. Yours does. Fossa?! 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we find RS usage of "opponent of NRMs" or "critic of NRMs" being used to describe one of these guys? Or we might want to clearly make the point that "cult" is a subjective and contentious terms and no implication is meant if we use the term "cult critic". Something like that? Again, supported by RS. --Justanother 17:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
ps Careful with the 3RR, guys. One or both of you may already be over. --Justanother 17:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Tilman has agreed above that cult refers to the pejorative colloquial mening, therefore feel free to change it. Fossa?! 17:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not what I wrote. --Tilman 18:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, I guess that your above makes you a "critic of selected NRMs" that you feel are cults (a pejorative term meaning a self-serving, manipulative, and dangerous religious group). You are critical of 5-10 NRMs. That makes you an "NRM critic". You are only a "cult critic" in your own eyes and in the eyes of like-thinkers. To matter-of-factly call you a "cult critic" elevates (or denigrates) those NRMs you oppose to the status of cults as defined above. Therefore, it cannot be NPOV to call you that. --Justanother 18:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an "NRM critic", since I criticize only NRMs that I consider to be cults. An "opponent" would be someone who oppose them, pure and simple. --Tilman 18:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't really get the "opponent" vs. "critic" arguments as they are pretty equal terms in English. But by your own admission their being "cults" is subjective. My point exactly. And I see that in the cult article it is usually "alleged cults" or "purported cult". We need to follow that lead. --Justanother 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Its not. In the context, "opponent" is a negative term, which is why he loves it so much. Fossa has been critical of cult critics, which is why he tries to make them look like irrational, mindless "opponents" with a black and white view. --Tilman 18:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
"Opponent" is, of course, not a negative term. The Bears are opponents of the Colts; Clinton an opponent of Bush; the anti-nuclear movement is an opponnent of nuclear energy; you get the point. If "cults" are really so terrible as "cult critics" allege they are, you better be an opponent of them. Fossa?! 19:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
As I've tried to explain you before, it depends of the context (see the word above, I've hilighted it). An opponent of Bush wants to get rid of Bush. Your imaginary "Opponents of cults" don't intend to "get rid" of cults, nor is there a way to do so. They just try them to respect human rights, etc. Characterizing cult critics as trying to "get rid of" cults is an example of your attempt to portray it negatively. --Tilman 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
What makes this topic so special? That "cult critics" have adopted this term as their little pet? And thus, they consider every other term an insult? Bush opponents BTW usually do not want to get rid of him altogether, but just want him out of office. Anti-cult activists, on the other hand, do want all "cults" to fold. BTW: Your alarmist language ("human rights", which anyways can only be violated by states) says it all). Fossa?! 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Getting Bush "out of office" is exactly what is meant by "getting rid of him". Please don't play that stupid.
There is no evidence that anti-cult activists do want all "cults" to fold.
By your logic, you'd have to call any human rights organisation an "alarmist" organisation too. And by your language, it is clear that you are using "opponent" as an attack word, not as a neutral word. --Tilman 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
No, human rights organisazation such as amnesty international are interested in human rights. "Cult critics" tend to misuse the term human rights. Fossa?! 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Not true. And who is using an "alarmist argument" now :-) --Tilman 21:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fossa link deletions

Fossa is working on a salami-like dilution of the article (one paragraph at a time). This time it's the links, with his usual "Joker" Argument WP:EL:

Of course, all links deleted are critical of the cult apologists, or, like the TIME article, have both sides (but includes criticism of cult apologists). I'm now at 3RR, so I can't put them back within the next 24 hours. Hopefully, someone else will. --Tilman 18:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Time is "RS" and should go back in. I'll do it. EL to biased sites is to be avoided, especially if they are talking about 3rd parties which they are in this case. --Justanother 18:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Time is a reliable source, but the article is not about the term "cult apologist". It merely mentions the fact that someone has labeled Melton an "apologist". Certainly too specific to be linked to in this lemma. Might be used as a source, though. Fossa?! 18:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
IDK. I mean, it says 'Enroth sees Melton as an "apologist" for cults'. Certainly we are talking about the same thing here. The name-calling. It has value to track the development of the term, don't you think? --Justanother 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I think the article should make clear that this is name calling. No need to link to that article, as it contains no extra information on the term "cult apologist". Fossa?! 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings and will have to think about that a bit more than I can now. Perhaps others can also offer their opinion. --Justanother 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
So you just confirmed that it is on-topic. Next time, please discuss your reasons before deleting. --Tilman 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Obfuscating, your name is Tilman. I confrmed that this article can be used as a source for a very specific piece of information, namely that Melton has been labelled a "cult apologist" by some person. Beyond that, the article does not contain any extra information about the meaning of the term. Fossa?! 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe read the article again, you obviously missed the debate presented. And avoid name calling on me - keep these to the usenet and the german wikipedia. --Tilman 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, poor you, you call people "cult apologists", "liers", and so on, but as soon as someone does a slight slur on your despicable tactics of obfuscating arguments, it's "please don't attack me, I'm so decent and fragile". And then some more ofuscating as usual: Read the article, there might be something in it to support my argument. Search for yourself. Fossa?! 19:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The term "cult apologist" is itself controversial (since Melton & co don't like to be called so), so there should be links to both sides of the issue. --Tilman 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not necessary, if no WP:RS can present the other site. No need to link to creationists sites in evolution. Fossa?! 18:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stay on topic. --Tilman 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fringe exceptions?

Since this article is basically about a fringe term (cult apologist) with little usage in the real world, the question is is whether or not normally excluded sources per RS like Ross' or Hein's arbitrary lists on their personal websites should be included as exceptions. Hein's or Ross' personal opinions as expressed on their websites are surely not RS; however, without their internet pontifications, there may be no "cult apologist" Wiki entry! Comments welcomed. BabyDweezil 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to link to the KKK in Nigger. If no reliable source uses the term, then tough luck for our anti-cult zealots. Fossa?! 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
There is plenty of RS to go around. These claims have been quoted in published media. --Justanother 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stay on topic. --Tilman 18:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I am quite on topic, but you have obviously a problem with understaning analogies. Fossa?! 19:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ross' and Hein' sites point to many newspaper articles about the discussion, which is why they are useful. Plus, as I said, Ross is considered a cult expert by the media and the courts. --Tilman 18:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
We should not be looking to obviously biased sites to "do our work for us". That information is useful to us (the wikipedia editors, not the wikipedia reader) in that it points us at materials that we can then find on our own and verify before inclusion in this article. No need to link there. --Justanother 18:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
By that logic, there should be no external links, ever. --Tilman 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, if what Justanother calls "obviously biased sites" are not used, are you actually saying that then there would be "no external links, ever"??? As they used to say on Weakest Link, "is that your final answer? :) BabyDweezil 19:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you forgot to say it with Anne Robinson's intonation. By the way "used to say"? I think, it's still on, at least on BBC, I guess, she was a bit too snide for US standards. Fossa?! 19:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. For a controversial term, most external links will be biased. As a wikipedia editor, I have no problem even adding links that are opposed to my own opinion (I even added links to scientology in the german article), because I think that the reader should decide for himself. Fossa on the other hand, seems to consider that his POV (that there are no cult apologists, and that cult "opponents" have not proven that they are rational human beings) is the "neutral" one :-) --Tilman 19:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Straw man arguments. Of course, I have an advantage for my, the social scientific, point of view. It's usually congruent with WP:RS. Scientology and its self-declared "critics", are usually in violation of WP:RS. Tough luck for you, but don't despair, you and your numerous activist friends have WP:3RR and WP:IAR in your favor. Fossa?! 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If you ever make an argument grounded on social science, I suggest you put it in a different colour, so that it is noticed. All I read here were arguments of the kind 1) "Dr. Fossa knows it better", 2) "cult critics are no rational human beings". --Tilman 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analogies

This is great for analogies to our article here: List of political epithets. Many of them have articles, ex. Bible thumper. Please note the very distinct absence of present-day real-life "examples", at least in every case I checked. --Justanother 19:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of financial COI do belong here

BabyDweezil, u

Sorry I keep hitting the "revert" button on my anti-vandal software by mistake which reverts with no specific edic comment.

Allegations of NRM scholars havilng financial COI *do* belong in an article on "cult apologists". Tanaats 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No Tanaats, this is an encyclopedia article, not an (old) CAN witchhunt. Look at the first sentetence in the section you are defending: Individuals who have been accused of cult apologism have been accused of accepting financial support from alleged cults.
The sentence contains TWO accusations, none of which are in themselves indicative of wrongdoing, but only that IN SOMEONE's OPINION, they are guilty of....something.
Where are the official censures of these academics by their respective committees and other venues of oversight? THAT would indicate some acceptable finding of wrongdoing. Instead, you would have only cobbled together quotes of "accusations." As the section (and most of this article) stands, it is totally innuendo, and leads the reader to draw negative conclusions about the "accused" via a chain of guilt by association claims. But regarding all these crimes these researchers have been "accused of, Tanaats, as the old american commercial asks---Where's the Beef?? BabyDweezil 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
BD, we have been going in circles for some time now on this and other articles on these same sorts of guideline issues, as well as looping incessantly other guideline issues. I have to stop at some point and give it up as futile. Tanaats 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Give up discussing some topics, but don't give up editing. --Tilman 23:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep. :-) Tanaats 01:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Why did my response come out bold? Tanaats 01:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, because you had a ";" at the beginning. I changed it. --Tilman 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Tanaats, as an aside, you might consider my policy. Never use automated software (popups or VP, etc.) to revert the edits of your "opponents" in an edit war or elsewhere. Revert software is for clear vandalism. Do it manually. --Justanother 23:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no wikipedia policy that an "official censures of these academics by their respective committees and other venues of oversight" is needed to present facts. Plus, someone like Melton does not have an "oversight". He's self-employed. --Tilman 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Justanother. Thank you, yes. With the "Lupin Anti-Vandal Tool" the auto-revert link is just above the date/timestamp link above the prior version. Instead of hitting the date/timestamp link I accidentally poked the auto-revert link just above it. I have to be more careful, as I've done this a couple of times in the last week. Tanaats 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BabyDweezil vs. 3RR

Hi all. BabyDweezil is introducing OR and deleting well-sourced material more often then I am allowed to revert it. What do do? Thanks. Tanaats 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you of WP:AGF. A good deal of what I have been cleaning up has been poorly sourced, distorted, and outright false information in some articles, and tagging or removing a fair amount of OR. You are free to discuss these edits at length well before 3RR issues have to kick in. BabyDweezil 23:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Not true. You have indeed deleted an incredible amount of well-sourced material. To quote Scarlett: "And I'll think of some way to get it back. After all... tomorrow is another day." :-)
What do you hope to acomplish? The information about cult apologists Melton & co won't go away. It was already known before wikipedia - read the singapore article. It will stay, in one way or another. --Tilman 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
BD, I actually do assume good faith. I believe that you sincerely believe that you are doing the right thing in defense of Truth. I just think that you are actually doing destructive things.
And I have already frequently discussed these exact same issues with you at length on this and several other articles to no avail. Tanaats 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
So did I - for a short moment. Then I looked at his other edits and remembered that WP:AGF also says: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. --Tilman 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I see that BD removed the entire AUM section! That was the most important part of the article, since it showed clearly that Melton, Lewis & co did PR for this murder cult. (Btw, 10 years later, Melton lied about it and claimed the opposite) --Tilman 23:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, some friendly advice to a fellow editor. Incessant ranting in a discussion page is not a good way to gain credibility for your ideas on improving an article. BabyDweezil 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
What happened to You are free to discuss these edits at length well before 3RR issues have to kick in from a few minutes ago? --Tilman 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Allegations of financial COI" is OR

The article is called "cult apologist." I assume we agree this means someone who supposedly defends a "cult." That is the topic of the article. allegations of financial COI is added original research whose sole purpose is to tack on whatever assorted "accusations" can be dug up to add to the already pejorative accusation of being a "cult apologist." Its pure witchhunt methodology--first create a negative aura via an accusation of being a "cult apologost," then throw in any and every seemingly negative inference one can find. This is simple OR being used for the most blatent and flagrent POV mongering. I'm afraid I must delete that section, and would be open to seeing some NPOV way, if possible, of including any of it thats of importance. Remember Jimbo's(?) advice--Wikipedia is not a tabloid. BabyDweezil 23:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

All of that material is backed up by reputable secondary sources, in most cases scholarly sources. This is not OR. Please do not remove. Thanks. Smee 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
Smee, as much as I appreciate your speculations on what constitutes relevant material and OR, I think your history on this page forces me to take it with a grain of salt. some examples are your insertion of a blatantly defamatory misquote from Eileen Barker falsely styling her as an advocate of payoffs from cults (which I had to remove) as well as such humdingers as quoting a gossip columnist and trying to lend false authority to the quote by describing it as "according to Esquire magazine." As such, I'm going to have to take your suggestions with a grain of salt and stick with my gut feeling that the section in question is pure POV mongering OR. Cheers....BabyDweezil 01:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks - quoting from that article: Comment on content, not on the contributor. (emphasis in the original). And this information is highly sourced material from reputable sources. And I have worked with other editors to edit the various quotations cited above as to add more context. Smee 05:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
It's precisely the content that I am commenting on, and stating honestly that given some of the previous content you have added to this article which I have noted above, I am reluctant to agree with your assertion that the material we are discussing now is acceptable simply because it is sourced. The defamatory material you added earlier was sourced and from a RS. Please note, material that is POV and OR can be "highly sourced material from reputable sources." I am clearly not objecting to the sourcing. BabyDweezil 05:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1) The quote was by esquire magazine. The article itself was not about "gossip", and nobody has claimed that it was inaccurate. However, to appease you, I don't mind if you reinsert the words "Gossip columnist" in the article. (I won't do it myself, however)
2) The quote from Eileen Barker may have been a bit short, but the full quote is still showing her in a bad light: she claims that one might still be objective despite accepting gifts. (I explained in discussion why this is an illusion) Had Smee brought the large quote, you might as well have claimed that it was "too long". So-- whatever. --Tilman 05:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That section is not only properly titled, it is still incomplete :-) Melton once got 10K from the "Family", and he also got money from that J.Z. Knight woman. --Tilman 05:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ASR

I have deleted that prem-rawat anonymous anti-wikipedia link. Please read WP:ASR - such texts are usually a no-no. I think we don't lose much be not having that link. If we keep that one, we could as well include Fossa's wikisucks blog :-) --Tilman 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aum Shinrikyo section

there is nothing in this section which speaks to anyone indicating that Melton is a "cult apologist" based on this information. As such, its OR.

The second paragraph states Critics see this as an example of cult apologism by these scholars. Esquire Magazine, in describing Melton's actions in this incident, noted that he "is considered by many cult foes to be an apologist for the groups."[8]. There is nothing in the brief article by a gossip columnist from Esquire that supports the contention that Melton's actions in Japan are "an example of cult apologism." Again, orginal research. I'm removing this section since it is unsupported. BabyDweezil 16:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like wikilawyering, since you used your criticism against a minor part as an excuse to remove the entire segment about Melton's shilling for AUM. And shilling for a cult is what cult apologism is all about. --Tilman 16:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem my friend. Find a reliable source accusing Melton of "shilling for AUM" and pop it right in there. BabyDweezil 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not your "friend". The sources you deleted (including the Washington Post) shows that he was shilling for AUM. Maybe read it. They had hired him, and poof! he claimed that they were innocent of the terrorist attacks. (FYI: they were not).
Btw, I'm not reverting right now. I'll wait until you're finished with your vandalism. --Tilman 17:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
hold on, Tilman. before you revert, please understand some basic tenets about writing an article for an encyclopedia. The Washington Post article contains no allegations of anyone being a cult apologist, which is why it and the claims it supposedly supported was removed. The conclusion that the article shows that Melton was "shilling for AUM" is entire YOUR spin, which makes it original research. so please familiarize yourself with some basic Wiki guidelines for acceptable sources, claims etc, before you make accusations of vandalism. And I still consider you my friend (but dont expect any love bombs) BabyDweezil 18:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the Washington Post article, and the Wikipedia article. The WP article is a typical example for the activities described. (But then, some people claim that 2+2=4 is original research) Anyway - enjoy "your" definition for a few minutes, or a few hours, while it lasts.
I've been on wikipedia more than a year now. I know what OR is. And I know what bad faith is. --Tilman 18:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Since you are familiar with the policies, find a RS that supports a claim that Melton has been accused of being a cult apologist on the basis of his activities on behalf of Aum Shinrikyo, and put it in there. Trying to spin the WP article to say what YOU want it to say is not acceptable. BabyDweezil 18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This is really ridiculous. The source is there. It doesn't matter that the WP does not use the words cult apologist. I have no desire to again start a discussion with someone who's shown such an incredible amount of bad faith.
Just as I wanted to restore all, I see that Smee has done it. Thank you. --Tilman 21:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks at least for clarifying the view here of some editors that the relevance and content of material shoveled into this article doesnt matter as long as it is sourced! interesting approach to editing, indeed. BabyDweezil 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
And just as I was restoring Rick Ross, I see it's also been done. One more word about my modus operandi. I'm really willing to use "neutral" words for people and organisations I dislike, or to have you chose them. No problem with me. However, you will get in trouble with me (and many other people on wikipedia) if you start deleting information, just because you don't like it, by using some "joker" excuses, or saying that 2+2 != 4. Just because you've seen Fossa doing this, doesn't mean it is good - or successful. It isn't. In the german wikipedia, this has resulted in most disputed articles being blocked, many in the "not-liked-by-Fossa" version.
There are people on the "other side" who are trying to make an attempt at good faith to solve the disagreements here. Jossi and Justanother are making an attempt at it. Not perfect, but more than I had expected. (This is meant to be a compliment). --Tilman 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, this page is for discussing improvements in the article. I'm truly not concerned about "getting in trouble with you" nor constantly monitoring and cleaning up your POV pushing. I have discussed and justified all my edits, additions, and subtractions. i am not going to waste any more time responding to your or anyone else's rants and faux outraged "how dare you touch my precious POV version!" reversions if they dont discuss substantive actual issues with an article. You can use USENET for all the rest. cheers! BabyDweezil 21:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the wording "get in trouble with me" was too much sandbox-like. What I mean is that "delete first, talk later" is not a constructive way to work here.
This article has always been well-sourced and NPOV. It has always been clear that "cult apologist" is not a "nice" term. What you (and Fossa) are trying to do is to remove the article section by section. That isn't going to work. --Tilman 07:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The end result of all this will be that the article will get protected until common ground is found. As I have edited the article, I cannot protect it myself, but if the revert war continues I will place a request at WP:FRPP. I would say that although BabyDweezil may have been a bit over the top with WP:BOLD, there are some arguments that he has made that seem reasonable and need to be addressed. Editwaring seldom achieves anything, besides getting editors blocked or the article ending up protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈,
OK, I hear you, but this chap seems dead set on removing the "whole" section. Can we bring out sentence by sentence here and discuss the merits and proceed. I did some editing on this group and found they were trying to "play" with ebola! Yikes...so if some one was trying to help them out (defend them) for financial gain/payment for services rendered, even if it wasn't very large in my opinion it merits documentation of said activity.PEACETalkAbout 02:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocking the article has nothing to do about having edited it, this is about whether you're an admin or not. --Tilman 07:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I am an admin, Tilman. But we are not supposed to protect articles that we have edited. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, No I am not an admin. My point was to editors being blocked or banned for reverting when the complete section is removed. So, I was merely acknowledging ≈ jossi ≈'s points and pointing out that perhaps we can figure this out here in the talk page. Are you an admin...?TalkAbout 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm at the bottom of the WikiFoodChain, and have no plans to move up :-) --Tilman 21:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There really is a better way, IMO

The better way is NPOV. Let's start with the facts. I am working this out for myself as I go here. There are all kinds of groups out there. Some of them might be consider manipulative and self-serving. Of course, that is a possible factor in any human relationship from marriage to your chess club. People abusing other people is a reality and a human failing. This is a bit off-topic so I will stop on that for now. Anyway, there is a group; its leadership and its members; two parties, say. What happens then is that a 3rd party, let's call them the "critic", decides that the group's leadership (or structure) is abusive of the members. This can be based on their direct experience or indirect research. The critic might be right or they might be wrong. They might be fair or they might be biased. The critic takes action to oppose this perceived abuse. Such action may or may not be abusive; very abusive like "deprogramming" or somewhat abusive like screaming at Scientologists about Xenu and mocking them. The group protests such treatment but their protests are discounted by the critics as obviously biased. Then a 4th party enters the fray. These are people that profess to be knowledgable and neutral (although the critic would, of course, also claim neutrality). Some of them take a view on such groups that is different from the critic; or they feel that the criticism they observe is inappropriate even if the group has failings. They defend the goup against what they feel are excesses on the part of critics and, in turn, critics criticize them (and call them names). So those are the players, right?

NPOV: An encyclopedia takes a distant view of things. It stands above the fray. Some of us here are down in the trenches, fighting battles. That makes it tough to write for an encyclopedia. Let's all resolve to take a little break from the battle.

So the players are four as mentioned; the leadership or structure of the group; the members; the critics; the defenders. The subjects can be many but for our purposes here they are the interplay between critics and groups and that between critics and defenders. The former is covered in the article Opposition to cults and new religious movements. The latter is referenced there as 'Disputes about "cult apologism"' and links here for further treatment. I think that reference is the genus of the problem. It, itself, should be better worded to be NPOV and then that wording would carry over here as a new title. Then "cult apologist" would be stubbed as a definition similar to any other epithet and would link back to our renamed article. Tilman, that would give you the proper place to put all the RS material on the dispute between critics and defenders that you would like to and it would still give you an article for "cult apologist". The real problem is that we are missing an important piece of the puzzle, a true article about the dispute between critics and defenders and some are trying to press an article about an epithet into service for that and that is offensive. So, I apologize if I continue to make the same point about the title but I think I have put my finger on the real issue here. Comments? --Justanother 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing BabyDweezil's arguments

Jossi, your suggestion is great. Let's break it out into a new section and discuss. Which of BabyDweezil's arguments do you think that we should discuss first? Tanaats 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bad grammar

This was in contradiction with police reports that had discovered at Aum's main compound in March, of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison

should be more like

This was in contradiction with police reports from March about the dicovery of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory at Aum's main compound, that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison --Tilman 07:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Does the reference indicate that Melton's statements contradicted police reports? No it doesnt. Just another example of the original research/bashing that this article is being used for. BabyDweezil 14:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions drawn from primary materials (even if the primary materials are themselves secondary materials) require a secondary source. The best that could be done would be descriptive comments of the police reports and the news report and let the wikipedia reader draw his own conclusion but that would likely be what I like to call "an OR juxtaposition". --Justanother 14:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of well sourced material to the effect "so and so called Melton a cult apologist for his role in Aum... etc", this section really should be removed. Otherwise, its just Wikipedia calling Melton a cult apologist, based on posting an article called "cult apologist", offering some vague definition,. and then cobbling together whatever news reports might be used as evidence to label different people "cult apologists." This is an encyclopedia???? BabyDweezil 15:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What, exactly, is your argument? That there was no police report (this was added by Jossi [8]), or that there was no contradiction, or that the word "contradiction" should not be used? Are you aware of this source: [9]: The real target of the raids that began on March 17 was the building known as Satyan 7, a supposed shrine to the Hindu god Shiva, the most prominent figure in the Aum Shinrikyo religious pantheon. In reality, the building housed a moderately large-scale chemical weapons production facility, designed by cult engineers, with first-rate equipment purchased over-the-counter.
This was the old text: However, the Japanese police had already discovered at Aum's main compound back in March a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison.
And, how does your argument support the deletion of the entire segment? --Tilman 17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, if you can't see how your explanations and justifications for this section--which involves patching together separate sources to make it look like Melton was contradicting contemporary police reports (the CDC article you are appealing to appeared FOUR YEAR LATER)--amounts to original research, I really can't help you or add anything to what I've said. Sorry. BabyDweezil 18:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You did not answer my questiona. And it doesn't matter when the article appeared. Even if it appeared yesterday, the fact is that Melton (who is not active in law enforcement or in chemistry) claimed at that time that the cult didn't commit the murders - but it did. And years later, he lied about his own role in 1995. Btw, this is from an LA Times article: In extensive raids, police have seized more than 1,000 drums of toxic chemicals and petroleum, scoured the group's laboratory facilities and examined cartons of documents--seizing evidence which they say proves that the group made sarin, a Nazi nerve gas suspected in the attack, according to Japanese press reports.--Tilman 18:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Essentially, it is a good example of when the field of "cult-apologism" can create individuals with bias and such a strong lack of neutrality such as to accept monies to defend what are essentially terrorist acts. I mean, my god, Melton might not have read the police reports at the time but 12 people died, 54 were injured seriously and another 980 were also injured. Yeesh... Smee 18:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Smee, please use this page to discuss improvements to the article, and in this instance, whether or not the issues I've raised violate Wikipedia guidelines, rather than your personal opinions, which, with all due respect, are irrelevant and only serve to obfuscate the discussion. BabyDweezil 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
BabyDweezil, Please follow your own advice before giving out hypocritical advice to others. Thanks. Smee 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Smee, I've used this page to discuss improvements to this artcile. You may disagree with my points. however, let me refer you to WP:NPA with respect to your increasingly hostile responses to my suggestions on improving this article. BabyDweezil 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article protected

Hihi, just as Tilman predicted, the article has been protected in what can be roughly termed as an anti-cult activist version. He's absolutely right: Usually it is the activist zealots version that gets protected, simply because they like to revert and they are many. They just shovel anything in, which makes "cults" and in this case academic scholars look bad, pepper it with dubious sources (Ross, Hein, Skeptic Magazine et al.) and voila it looks as if there would be an encyclpedic article, where there is propaganda. Wikipedia has no mechanism to deal with these POV pushers, because of its disdain for actual academic experts and lack of actual knowledge within wider strata of the population. There is some chance, you can get Yugoslavia-related articles encyclopedic, but no chance in the new religious movements sector. Fossa?! 10:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I didn't make that prediction. I mentioned what happened in the german wikipedia. Jossi made a prediction (The end result of all this will be that the article will get protected until common ground is found), and it did end so.
Second, Ross, Hein, and Skeptic Magazine are not "dubious sources". (Nor are the Washington Post, TIME magazine, and Prof. Kent + Beit-Hallahmi, that are also sources for this article). I suggest you look up Skeptics Society and Michael Shermer. Rather, Melton, Shupe & co are the "dubious sources", and this article quotes many different sources (academic, journalistic and activist) to show this.
Third, as I've told before, these "bad boy techniques" (delete first, talk later) are not constructive. People have tried to explain this to you many times before. And the worst is that other people copy these techniques. --Tilman 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolving the dispute

Please comment below on my suggestion as outlined above (There really is a better way, IMO) to create a new article entitled something like "Debate over criticism of cults" and then to shorten this article to simply describe the epithet without reference to any specific "examples". --Justanother 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - as per me. Obviously --Justanother 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You can just read the last paragraph of my previous post or it can be summarized by one line:

"The real problem is that we are missing an important piece of the puzzle, a true article about the dispute between critics and defenders and some are trying to press an article about an epithet into service for that and that is offensive."

--Justanother 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support refer to pretty much any of my comments. Or, wikipedia can just continue with the usual zealotry on these type of pages. No biggie. BabyDweezil 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Fossa?! 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC) (Pretending this would change anything)
Change "partisan politics". No, not likely (but one can hope). More just move the battles to where they belong and at least start on a "level playing field", not a front-loaded pejorative. --Justanother 16:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. The article topic is excellent as it is. If we change it, we could as well change racism to Opposition to the philosophy of multiculturalism. The real problem is that one, and then two people who believe in deleting well-sourced facts. --Tilman 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you on all counts above but I am not going to continue the contentious debating that permeates "discussions" here and elsewhere. My opinion is that you are in the minority and we will see if that is the case. --Justanother 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW Tilman, I really like your analogy of racism. Would you please be so kind as to point me at the specific parts of that article that give examples of present-day people that someone thinks is a racist? I couldn't find any. --Justanother 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Here is my problem, Tilman (and Smee). You want to use this article to make the case that someone IS a "cult apologist" when the norm for articles on perjorative terms is to NOT DO THAT; i.e. no-one is trying to call anyone a racist in the racism article. Yet certainly there are racists (google images for "racist"; that is interesting) and certainly there are people here that would like to point out that some famous figure is a racist. But they manage to restrain themselves (or are restrained). --Justanother 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject -, Per Tilman's excellent points. This article has been in existence in one form or another since March 2005... Smee 17:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Same as above and so what if has been here since March 2005. I am not even saying that there should not be an article "cult apologist". --Justanother 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject- Due to all the academic books listing these (the afore mentioned in the article) as Cult apologists. Might I add that the counter group Apostasy now have an academic book solely on their role: The Politics of Religious Apostasy, The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements. So, it won't be long before there is a complete book on Cult Apologists and their Role in Religion in the Age of Transformation. Hiding facts won't help this process and if one such Cult apologist errors in an assessment, then they can correct it by putting out some paper/book to clarify their new found position. This will show integrality and validity of any future work. PEACETalkAbout 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
"Apostate" is not pejorative but, again, I find it interesting that there are zero examples of actual present-day "apostates" in that article. Re: "Due to all the academic books listing these (the afore mentioned in the article) as Cult apologists." Exactly what published books are you referring to because what I mostly see are websites, a few newspaper accounts, and maybe an academic paper or two? --Justanother 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, I completely forgot about "all the academic books listing these as Cult apologists." Could you indulge me and list just the most important of "all the academic books" that make such a list? And we definitely should add at least the most important of "all the academic books listing these as Cult apologists" to a bibliography right away! Seems like an oversight :) In any case, hopefully a bit of sanity will set in and we'll see that the practice of using this term will be more aptly understood as being not different than this one. BabyDweezil 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Justanother,
Sorry, I deleting your comments when adding my comment by accident. Now, as to the listings, they are within the books of cults, but as yet I see no one book like the one for Apostasy covering the very topic of Cult Apologists. If it would bring some agreement I could place citations next to the individuals mentioned within those books I have. I personally see the term "Apostate" more personal than Cult Apologist as it is more of a personal nature, but alas here we sit. I have a question, are the folks removing the information, mentioned here as Cult Apologists?
Just a sample:
  • Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: pg 16 "As cult apologist David Reed and Frarkus observe,..."
  • Challenging Religion:pg 82 "...the Great cult apologist conspiracy Massimo Introvigne.."
  • New Religious Movements in the twenty-First Century: Aum pg 199 "It also seemed to confirm the arguments made by prominent anticult activists in Japan that the academics are little more than apologists for dangerous and deviant groups."
At any rate I think we can see that they are talked about as cult apologists and for us here to change that would be counter productive and give the appearance that we are caving into pressure from a few that don't like the term that is widely used. PEACETalkAbout 00:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No prob on the deletion. I figured it was unintentional. Good info you've offered. I checked the Rhodes book, Challenge of the Cults and New Religions, on Amazon.com (ain't it great!). He is using the older "non-derogatory" meaning of the term as in "Martin used the neologism Cult Apologetics in a positive and self-referential way to identify ministries that evangelize those involved in cults." That is interesting as I thought that usage had died out but it is not really applicable to our issue at hand. I will check the others if I can later (I am off for coffee and a donut now) or perhaps someone else can. --Justanother 01:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
TalkAbout, did you actually read those books or are you basing your comments on a search of some sort. Because the second book; Challenging Religion by James Beckford, supports the position that the term is objectionable and used only as a pejorative to label opponents. The article you quote was written by Introvigne! --Justanother 01:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The last one I will not bother with as it is not "cult apologist" but a standard English definition of the word, "apologist". Looks like you struck out on those three. Sorry. --Justanother 01:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the creation of a new article @ Debate over criticism of cults, as there is no reason not to do so. Once that article is created and sourced, we can see what material from here, if any, is more appropriate for that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Justanother,
Well, I am afraid to say, but yes I have these books all over my office with legal post-its throughout. I read sections and then go on to others.
I am currently reading “Destroying the World to Save it”Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence, and the New Global Terrorism”. So, I saw some were of the pro and some of the anti point of view. The point is that the term is really neutral in my view, as a mere reference doesn’t destroy a career, it merely states that you have a particular point of view, for a) support, b) financial or c) receiving some other benefit tangible or not.
I don’t think the term Cult Apologist is wrong and to be frank I think the “Apostates” have a harder time as they are not presented as the authorities/academics. Please view this to find entries for both the Apostate and the Cult Apologist [10](shocked...just learned I purchased "Cult Apologist books!). Just found this which is a whole lot better and right on topic @ University of Missouri-Kansas City [11]. This one is interesting as it has two categories: One for Cult Apologist (members who actively advocate) and the second one for "academics". Does the current article make that distinction?
Josssi, are you saying to create Debate over criticism of cults, in addition or as a substitute for the current Cult Apologist.
  • Support if in addition to the current article Cult Apologist, otherwise no after reading the above provided links.
PEACETalkAbout 05:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
TalkAbout, my original proposal is to create the new article to discuss the conflict and the personalities involved (RS, of course) and then leave "cult apologist" to just deal with the term. That is what I wanted all along. Thanks --Justanother 05:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
So TalkAbout, do you support or reject my proposal; because now we have two different votes from you. Do you need me to clarify anything about my proposal? --Justanother 16:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: - An article on Debate over criticism of cults, would seem to be another discussion/matter entirely. In any event, the article cult is getting way too long and unwieldy, and could be split up into myriads of smaller articles... If this particular article stays in its present formatting and structure, I see no reason not to create other related articles which fork off from cult. In any other event, reject, as noted previously above. Smee 07:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Reject because "Debate over criticism of cults" won't work. None of the material here could be moved to the new article because none of the material here discusses any of the controversies regarding cult criticism. Not one of the issues regarding "cult criticism" is discussed here. What is discussed is the lack of appropriate cult criticism. This is an important distinction. The only material that could be moved to a new "Debate over cult criticism" article would be from Anti-Cult Movement and Opposition to cults and new religious movements, both of which do actually discuss controversies regarding the criticism of cults. Tanaats 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Tanaats, I think you are mincing words here (to a degree). The dispute discussed in this article has to do with the fact that some do not consider others "sufficiently critical" or consider them "supportive when they should be critical". But OK, how about "Debate over alleged support of cults" then? I think that is closer to something you would agree with, no? It is fine with me too. --Justanother 16:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is what this article has to do with, and the originally proposed title does not describe that. Regarding "Debate over alleged support of cults", that would be descriptive. If that title were proposed, then I wouldn't have any strong opinion either way. Tanaats 17:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision to my proposal

Tanaats brought up a good point that may have resulted in an improvement to my proposed solution to this disgreement (and resulting page protection). I would change my proposal to the below. Please comment.

Please comment below on my suggestion as outlined above (There really is a better way, IMO) to create a new article entitled something like "Debate over alleged support of cults" and then to shorten this article to simply describe the epithet without reference to any specific "examples", which is the norm in every other analogous article that I checked. You can just read the last paragraph of my previous post or it can be summarized by one line:

"The real problem is that we are missing an important piece of the puzzle, a true article about the dispute between critics and defenders and some are trying to press an article about an epithet into service for that and that is offensive."

--Justanother 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involved editors

  • Support - as per me. Obviously --Justanother 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Stronly reject in it's current state. See prior comment below. Tanaats 01:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I want to expand on what I said above a few seconds ago. I neither reject nor support the proposed title change, but I would strongly oppose a split. The usages of the term "cult apologist" have been adequately sourced in the current article. It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. And the application of the term "cult apologist" to a person is in no way comparable to the application of the term "rascist" to a person; the two terms just don't compare at all. Well-sourced mentions of the usage of "cult apologist" are pertinent to said "debate", and should remain in any such "debate" article. So if a split is a required feature of this proposal, then I would have to vote reject. Tanaats 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject per my previous arguments. It is always best to describe something with an example. Without, it becomes too "dry". Maybe there are no examples of racist people in racism, but there are examples of racist attitudes, but that is because racism is all around. But there are only maybe 50, maybe even less cult apologists. --Tilman 18:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • There is an additional teeny-weeny difference: There is loads of academic work on racism, but virtually none on "cult apology" (with the possible exception of the Cowan piece). Fossa?! 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • You "forgot" the article by Kent, and the book by Singer. So that makes three. --Tilman 19:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
        • No, Kent does not use the term, and AFAIK neither does Singer. Fossa?! 19:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Singer uses the term "procult apologist". I mentioned this on this discussion page. Kent uses the concept, that is the same. For more examples, see Google Print. --Tilman 20:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Tilman, uttering the phrase "cult apologist" in passing does not constitute "loads of academic work" on the subject. There is in fact NO "academic work" on the subject, just rare instances of people like Singer calling their colleagues nasty names in passing. But of course, she thought the way to get people to accept your opinions was to sue them! BabyDweezil 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-involved editors

Justanother has hit the nail so squarely on the head that his comment bears repeating:

"The real problem is that we are missing an important piece of the puzzle, a true article about the dispute between critics and defenders and some are trying to press an article about an epithet into service for that, and that is offensive."

This article should be moved or a new article created with a neutral title like "Debate over alleged support of cults". It's just plain obvious that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article with the title of an offensive, pejorative, accusatory epithet which goes on to try to pin that offensive epithet on research professionals.
  • Strongly support. -DoctorW 22:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
See above, there is clearly no consensus for this. Smee 23:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Support. I found this through RfC. I support the general proposition that the title must be changed. This is another example of the term/subject distinction problem which is pervasive on Wikipedia. A pejorative term should not be used as the title of an article if the subject matter of the article is not strictly confined to the term itself, but instead bleeds over into the term's referent. -- Alan McBeth 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you support the split as well? It's all part of the same package currently. Please see my comment on the split above. Personally, I would abstain if the split weren't a part of the proposal. Tanaats 01:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't support a split. I think that discussion of the term "cult apologist" should be a subordinate element of the article on the debate. -- Alan McBeth 04:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cults in our midst

See also "Cults in our midst", pp. 217 - 219, notes on p. 352. I could scan / photograph the pages if needed. The authors (Singer + Lalich) use the term "procult apologists". --Tilman 14:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No need. That is standard usage of two English terms. That does not support the existence of a term "cult apologist". --Justanother 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that you read the politics involved here. An excellent compendium of articles is The Politics of Religious Apostasy The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements. It is an eye opener to the politics involved. In particular the pieces Exploring the Varieties of Apostate Roles by Stuart A. Wright, Apostates Who Never Were: The Social Construction of Absque Facto Apostate Narratives by Daniel Carson Johnson and Apostates, Defectors, Law and Social Control by James T. Richardson. Fascinating work and highly recommended to those that want to understand this phenomenon better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] While we're waiting for the page to be unprotected...

Could anyone make a list of the works publsihed in academic/scholarly journals by any of the following:

Steve Hassan

Rick Ross

Anton Hein

Alexander Dvorkin

Also, can anyone list any scholarly/academic publications that have discussed the work of any of the above? (I know Hassan and maybe Hein has been mentioned as anti-cult activists, but I'm interested in any scholarly/academic discussions of their work. Thanks! BabyDweezil 18:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant to this article? You might ask this in the respective articles. However, Wikipedia isn't an investigative forum. --Tilman 19:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I would think the relevance is self evident. I assume your saying you cannot supply any of the requested information. BabyDweezil 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The first three have been mentioned in academic articles for sure. Not sure about Dvorkin, but likely Marat Shterin may have mentioned him. However, it is not your (or anyones) task to "assign" work to other editors. --Tilman 20:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI - See multiple warnings and finally text ban by administrator on BabyDweezil's talk page. User in question has been banned from removing material from article mainpages, unless consensus is first achieved on talk page for said activity. The issue of inappropriate commentary in edit summaries was also brought into question. Smee 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm too tired to count my 3RR status (counting to 3 is sooo difficult :-)), so I will probably not do much today. I'll check tomorrow morning to see the diffs, if anything useful is still missing or distorted.
The best would be that BabyDweezil improves the segments that he thinks are out of context or somehow "not optimal". --Tilman 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
BD, you are repeating the "scholar" mantra again. The work of the above doesn't have to have been discussed in any journal in order to be admissible into the article. Tanaats 20:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I like that "scholar mantra", shows that you guys (Tanaats, Smee, Tilman) have absolutely no interest in, even a disdain for (social) science, which is what an encyclopedia would air. But here is Wikipedia, heaven for anti-cult propaganda pushers like yourself. Fossa?! 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh, another show of disdain for WP:NPA. I don't accept your "anti-cult propaganda pushers like yourself" label, however one would think that by now you would have ceased to be continually shocked by your realization of the nature of Wikipedia. It is what it is. Everyone is already aware of its weaknesses. In fact, here is an interesting discussion of the topic. Tanaats 01:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Scholars?!?! We dont need no stinking scholars!!. BabyDweezil 02:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Fossa, who removeth sociologist Stephen Kent from several articles, has spoketh. --Tilman 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update:page unprotected

I have unprotected the page, but note that if sterile edit wars break out again, I'm quite prepared to protect again. Bishonen | talk 00:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] AUM section move

The first AUM section might be moved to another section or the title above renamed - "use of the term" isn't accurate, maybe "use of the concept" or "activities of cult apologists" would be more, since the actual term isn't used, but the concept is. But I suggest to discuss this here first. --Tilman 05:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now moved AUM segment below Allegations of "cult apologism" without changing any contents (I did make some changes before in another edit). The problem with BD (who made the same move) was that he made "stealth" (apparently) changes while moving at the same time. --Tilman 09:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR does not apply to vandalism

And by blindly reverting perfectly reasonable, modest well sourced edits without any explanation, the article is being vandalized. So please stop, and Smee, please stop putting personal attacks in your summaries and make false accusations of vandalism and deletions. nothing was vandalized or deleted--look at the history. BabyDweezil 06:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that you stop your violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks as well. It is a two-way street. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... Smee 06:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Use this page to discuss any actual issues you have with any edits I've made. BabyDweezil 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You deleted the segment with AWARE and the "new CAN". So this isn't "just an edit". --Tilman 06:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't find "This was in contradiction with police reports that had discovered at Aum's main compound in March, of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison" anymore. Tanaats 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And that is why I've (mostly) reverted his last edit. --Tilman 17:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Because "This was in contradiction with police reports that had discovered at Aum's main compound in March, of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison" is an OR claim that has no support from any reference. It would need a source showing that at the time of their visit to Japan, they were contradicting police reports about "a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory." Otherwise, you are just juxtaposing later reports to make an inaccurate claim. I reworded the section to make it historically accurate and to conform to the sources. BabyDweezil 17:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
How did you "reword" it? You moved it away so its too difficult to see what you changed. I already asked you about that at an earlier time ("What, exactly, is your argument?"), and you didn't really answer. --Tilman 17:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
As I already told you, it is supported by this LA Times article: [12] In extensive raids, police have seized more than 1,000 drums of toxic chemicals and petroleum, scoured the group's laboratory facilities and examined cartons of documents--seizing evidence which they say proves that the group made sarin, a Nazi nerve gas suspected in the attack, according to Japanese press reports. --Tilman 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The Aum_Shinrikyo section is a short paragraph. Just compare it to the earlier wording. It's a mundane edit for accuracy. The LA Times does not say police discovered "a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison." At the time they were gathering evidence, which only later resulted in convictions. BabyDweezil 18:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You deleted it, that is the problem. You should reword it if you think that it doesn't match the sources. You invest 10 seconds to delete something, and then request that other work until you're satisfied.
The fact is that the cult apologists claimed that AUM didn't do it, despite police having found evidence that they made sarin. It doesn't matter that the final convictions were 10 years later. --Tilman 18:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, I didnt delete anything, made a small edit to a small section. The previous version is saved and easily accessed for comparison. And, the police saying they found evidence no more meant at that time that Aum did do it than did Melton's statements prove that they didnt. And the "cult apologists" have names.... BabyDweezil 20:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if it can be reverted, it is a deletion.
The point is: the cult apologists claimed that they didn't do it, despite the police having already found found evidence that they made sarin. --Tilman 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And you have still not explained why you deleted the AWARE segment. --Tilman 20:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Even more to the point -- Melton and Lewis didn't just claim that Aum Shinrikyo might not have done it, or that they were unlikely to have done it, or even that they had not done it, but that they could not have done it. Whether Melton and Lewis knew or could have known that they were contradicting the evidence that had already been discovered two months previously by the Japanese police is completely irrelevant to the fact is that their statements contradict, or perhaps more accurately are completely contradicted by that evidence. If BabyDweezil felt that the five words "This was in contradiction with" failed to properly convey the relationship between Melton and Lewis's public proclamations and the evidence which proved those proclamations inaccurate, he would have been within his rights to attempt a different and hopefully more satisfactory phrasing. To entirely delete all references to the evidence discovered by the Japanese police which showed Melton and Lewis to be incorrect is so entirely and obviously wrong that I do not think it could possibly have been done in good faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
In an effort to bring peace, I have removed the word "contradiction". It is obvious anyway that there is a contradiction. (Except to the four AUM-funded travellers, of course :-)). I have reworded the sentence, and added the LA Times source that I had mentioned here (which makes it clear that the result of the police raids were already known at that time). --Tilman 09:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Tilman, if you find anything inaccurate about the edit I made, please say what it is. I think it accurately characterizes the event. As to the AWARE bit, if you look at the earlier version, it said:
Professor of psychology and author of several books and articles on cults Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi[25], accuses certain groups of being cult apologists... followed by a list of groups. However, if you read the reference, Benny doesnt accuse anyone of "being cult apologists," and in fact he never even uses that term. I edited it to follow the reference, and took out that POV spin. BabyDweezil 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being "inaccurate", I accused you of deleting something. Please put it back in, and modify the wording so that you're satisfied.
About AWARE and all the groups etc: it is not about the term, it is about the concept. And that you deleted this several times, without mentioning why in the summary, and without mentioning it here (the above is the first time - I think). --Tilman 21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-posted from my user talkpage

Kindly review the most recent edits by Smee, who is on a rather hostile rampage, blindly reverting edits by disfferent editors without explanations and with false claims of "vandalism. I tend not to want to "tattle" on editors, but this is ridiculous. BabyDweezil 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
...
BabyDweezil, I hope you've noticed that I'm in no hurry to label editing "vandalism" as long as it can possibly be construed as good faith. But carpet-bombing the article with {{fact}} tags as in this edit, including (for god's sake) the basic summary in the introduction, is IMO nothing less than vandalism. Please tell me what exactly in the intro you consider unreferenced, for instance. You're disrupting Keith Henson and heading for another block. As for Smeelgova, I would still advise him aginst using the word "vandalism" in edit summaries. It's a good principle. Bishonen | talk 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

BD, since you're spreading your argument over different pages and thereby avoiding replying to queries and arguments such as mine above ("Please tell me what exactly in the intro [of Keith Henson] you consider unreferenced, for instance"), I'll ask you to keep all comments on articles on their talkpages. Be careful with that "3RR does not apply to vandalism" stuff. Read the 3RR policy. Here's the only kind of vandalism that you can revert without "counting it against 3RR": "simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking (this only applies to the most simple and obvious vandalism, for other vandalism please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)." See? I'd warn everybody on this page against thinking they can get away with violating the 3RR on the argument that they're reverting simple and obvious vandalism. The definition of that is extremely narrow. There have been no reversions of simple and obvious vandalism from either side in the current edit war on this page. And I'd warn BabyDweezil in particular: you were just blocked for edit warring, and you're butting up against the 3RR on Keith Henson. Please read WP:3RR, already. It's highly relevant to the kind of editing you're doing on several pages. If you don't pull in your horns you're heading for a longer block. Bishonen | talk 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

There's hardly a single fact in the whole, rather overblown Keith Henson article that's sourced, including the intro. I have no idea what you mean when you say I'm "avoiding replying to queries," sorry, I went to dinner. Au contraire, I have been practically begging editors here to seriously discuss the article and reply to my edits and comments, and have been consistently stonewalled. As for Henson, it's an WP:OR POV essay. I am not "Edit warring." I am making edits, rather ordnary ones, with explanations, and they are being reverted because somehow, some editors, and apparently you, Bishonen, think any time I edit I wikipedia I am doing something criminal. But the bottom line is--I challenge you or anyone to point to a single edit I've made today--including tagging the totally OT Henson article, that was unjustifiable and not consitent with Wikipedia editing and that needed to be reverted. Other than that, if you are not going to respond to my request for relief against Smee's rather creepy stalking of my edits and mindless automatic reversions (maliciously calling my work "vandalism") I'll take my complaints elsewhere. BabyDweezil 08:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have heard Bishonen's advice and will stop calling your questionable edits as "vandalism" in edit summaries. However, your other assumptions are just that - assumptions. Smee 08:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Well you might as well just keep yelling "vandalism", because saying "assumptions" is just a milder epithet offers no more information or analysis or response to my points than the "V-word." All you ever do is contradict me and revert me without explanation, but you have yet to engage in a susbstantive discussion on any issues regarding any of these articles. BabyDweezil 08:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
BD, all of this has already been discussed with you, at length, on many talk pages, over and over gain. Tanaats 15:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No vandalism by either of the the parties involved in this edit conflict, that's pretty clear. Fossa?! 17:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and original research

This article lacks a solid identity. Is it about the term "cult apologist"? Is it about those who are called "cult apologists" by those who use the term? Is it about anyone who writes positively or holds positive beliefs on new religious movements?

Second, insofar as it is about the term, this article is largely an original research synthesis of primary sources and interested secondary sources. The core of this article should be built around citations to disinterested secondary sources to avoid original research and POV problems. If there aren't such secondary sources, this may not be a justifiable article to begin with. -- Alan McBeth 01:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I suggest you tag sections or better, "atomar" allegations that you consider to be such original research. I'm also not sure I understand the difference between "original research" and "an original research synthesis of primary sources and interested secondary sources". From my understanding, a sourced article isn't original research. --Tilman 07:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've put in what I think is an appropriate template. The basic idea is that finding, interpreting, and using primary sources is original research. Historians, for instance, perform original research, and they rely almost exclusively on primary sources. -- Alan McBeth 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree but won't remove it right now. As I said, I prefer specific examples. Use [original research?] to flag these. IMO, this article is pretty well sourced - that is common for "controversial" articles. --Tilman 18:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether you disagree with the contents of the template or its applicability to this article. It's a standard template, not my text. The template refers to the article as a whole relying too much on primary sources and interested secondary sources. Tagging individual statements in this context is meaningless. -- Alan McBeth 18:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree. The articles doesn't have many "primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article", rather it has many third party sources (The Skeptic, The Marburg Journal of Religion, LA Times, Washington Post). I suggest that you provide actual examples of such "primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article". The article is about cult apologists, and does obviously not rely too much on sources by cult apologists. --Tilman 19:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
What qualifies as a primary source and what qualifies as an interested secondary source depends heavily on what the article is actually about. That's why that's the first thing I asked about when I started this section. I note that you suggest that it is about "cult apologists" (as opposed to, say, the term or the debate), which surprises me. I think that raises some issues and that continuing this discussion will be fruitless if we don't talk about those issues first. Let's come back to this after that, if necessary. -- Alan McBeth 20:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It is also about the term and the debate. --Tilman 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The article was initially started by some anti-cult activists to propagate their view on social scientific research on New Religious Movements. The bulk of that research contradicts the alarmist messages those activists want to get across. So, initially, the article contained mainly accusations against all sorts of people deemed "uncritical" merely because they do not confirm any brainwashing and other nasty things taking place in cults. As time wore on, other people dropped by, "cult" members as well as sociologists like myself. Since this is a swear word usually not used in scientific discourse, I tried to refocus the article on the history of its meaning, thus the lack of focus. Fossa?! 21:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, I don't think I'll try to contribute to this article. It looks like too much work just on the talk page side. My parting two cents: an article can't be coherent if it has multiple subjects, especially on Wikipedia where editors come and go. This article needs a single dominant subject, and that subject should have secondary sources that analyze it, not just sources that mention it. Also, if the subject of this article is going to be about anything except the term the article must be moved. -- Alan McBeth 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archived news articles?

Can someone explain how Rick Ross' website can be described as an archive of new articles? No offense by a dismal percentage of the content on that website fits this description. Most of the content is editorializing, now usually referred to as "blogging" and other strange tidbits like a "secret memorandum". The description makes it sound like Ross has collected third party news articles from reputable news sources. I don't know if the link belongs on the page or not (my intention is not to comment on that) but it is disparaging to see such a misrepresentation.PelleSmith 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see that particular link. It simply links to news articles on individuals and organizations. Smee 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
I agree with PelleSmith that the RR site is not compliant with WP:EL. It contains selective articles (mainly any articles that present new-religions in a poor light) and quite a bit of editorializing. Any useful sources there should be linked directly rather via a convenience link in that website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
PelleSmith has removed the "archived news articles" characterization of the EL and I'm fine with that, I replaced it with a wikilink to the Rick Ross article. Smee 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
Smee: There is not such an article. It is a collection of links, many of which are already referenced in the article. If there are links to material that is useful, we should refer to these rather than link to that site. As per WP:EL: Wikipedia articles can include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research which is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Such pages could contain further research which is accurate and on-topic - My points exactly, thank you! Smee 02:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
But only if that "information could not be added to the article" for reasons stated, Smee. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It is quite simple, really. If there is a good website with relevant content, we shall endeavor to use the content on that site to improve the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly, by your reasoning we could add every single archived news article individually to the EL section, from the "Cult Apologists?" page at Rick Ross, and yet not the page itself, archiving those said news articles? Seems to me like a double-standard... Smee 02:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
No, Smee. What I am saying is that if there are useful articles in that site, why are these not used as sources to improve the article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Your rationale simply does not make sense. It is one link, that only contains archived news articles relevant to the article subject, that have not yet been referenced specifically in the article. In fact, there are actually other similar links from people from the cult apologist camp that also have articles listed in the External Links section that have not yet made it as citations into the main article. Should we just remove the entire EL section because something has not yet made it into a citation? It takes up little space - let's leave it as is. Smee 04:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
I hear you, but continue to disagree. Let's hear what other editors have to say about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. It is a link to a cult expert, who has a collection of newspaper articles about cult apologists on that section of his website. Thus, it is useful.
If anyone has a link to a collection of articles about how scholars are falsely labelled as "cult apologists", despite that they are actually improving society and saving the world by supporting groups falsely labeled as "cults", lets include that one as well. --Tilman 07:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Look a vast majority of items there are NOT "newspaper articles". What gives with this continued misrepresentation? When Rick Ross writes a piece for "CultNews" its not considered a "newspaper article". When a "memorandum" between two or more accused "cult appologists" is published it is not a "newspaper article". And the list goes on. A very small minority of the links on the website lead to real newspaper articles. The point is that the site being linked to is NOT a collection of newspaper articles, but a collection of assorted documents most of which are Ross' editorials. This is abundantly clear to me ... someone new to this entry, to this particular controversy and to this person Rick Ross. The fact that people continue to call the site a collection of newspaper articles is beyond my comprehension. Call it what it is and argue from there. Please just show some respect to those who might want to actually gain some accurate information from this and other Wikipedia entries.PelleSmith 12:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't make a count. Apparently you did - so please, post the details of your statistics here. --Tilman 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, I have adjusted the clarification accordingly in the EL section, per your suggestion on the talk page above. However, it is factual that the majority of links in that page are archived news articles. The other types of documents are a minority of links on the subpage... Smee 13:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
A majority of links on the page fall under the category: Rick Ross CultNews.com. CultNews.com explains its own content thus: "A news perspective with analysis from cult expert Rick Ross". It is a newsblog plain and simple. Calling its contents "news articles" is missleading and wrong. Very, very few (a rather small minority) of the links actually go to third party reportage in real newspapers. What distinguishes a news article from an editorial, btw, is that the former has supposedly unbiased reportage, and the latter has no such standards--an editorial is a "perspective" filled with "analysis". CultNews.com doesn't pretend to be anything other than editorial, as it states from the outset. On top of this fact, Ross' collection of links does not actually ever, even to his own blog surprisingly, link directly to any external sources. It reproduces them, and some of them not even in entirety. One actual news article in fact is only reproduced in a two paragraph segment. Please adjudicate your position with some form of evidence instead of just telling me I'm wrong. I don't even care if the link is here--just don't falsify its contents, please. Pretty please. Thanks.PelleSmith 13:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
And yes I know that the descriptor was removed from the entry ... but clearly I can read the argument that followed on here in which at least two editors continue using this description.PelleSmith 13:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay then, "archived news articles and primary source documents". But again, your analysis of that particular subpage is misleading and simply factually incorrect. There are over 120 links to other resources on that page, "Cult Apologists?" - Of those, I counted less than 20 authored in some form by Rick Ross. All of the rest were links to other primary or secondary sourced documents. Smee 13:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
"Primary source documents" are not news articles as you admit yourself. Editorials are not either. What is left, and you may want to start acknowledging this, is a vast minority of the content. A vast minority consists of "news articles". Now that my interest is piqued I will gladly do a thorough content analysis of the site. More to come.PelleSmith 13:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I included the "editorials" in the count. Less than 17% of the material linked to from that subpage was authored by Ross. The rest comes from news articles, primary source documents of writings from cult apologists, and writings by scholars. Smee 13:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
I a number of the news articles in Ross' selective (negative) collection on various groups, he often intersperses the original article with his own commentary, thus doctoring them and making them expressions of his POV. BabyDweezil 14:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree that linking to RRI in articles as a "convenience" is totally inappropriate and it would be a useful project to go through all the "cult" articles and eliminate such links. We are supposed to be researchers and we are supposed to find the RS sources, read them, and edit based on those RS sources. To shortcircuit the process (because it is "easy") by going to what is presented as being a true copy of the RS on a highly biased website is just plain lazy (and yes, I am lazy too though I usually am able to find the article off RRI but still on the net). Now, while it is lazy, I find it forgivable. We are all busy and few of us likely want to go to the library and do the "real" research. And RRI is a good tool (not a source), when used by knowlegable editors, to find where the RS sources are, or at least that subset of RS sources that support his biased views. However, linking in the articles to a biased website containing what may or may not be a true and unedited copy of the material, and which is almost certainly republished there in violation of intellectual property laws, such linking in the articles is totally inappropriate. If a reader wants to check the sources then they can go find the true source, not RRI. --Justanother 14:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
An equally silly suggestion. By the same reasoning we should remove all links on Wikipedia to CESNUR related links, an equally if not moreso biased source... Smee 14:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
Smee, calling something silly and bringing up a non-related topic can hardly be called a cogent rebuttal. But thanks anyway for the effort. --Justanother 14:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a fine rebuttal. I am proving how silly a point it was to remove links to RRI. In any event, I respect your comment that: And RRI is a good tool (not a source), when used by knowlegable editors, to find where the RS sources are Very aptly put. Smee 14:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
Yes, a tool. For the editors. To then go and find the original article (on the publisher's site or in the library) to read it for ourselves. To do less is lazy research. But forgivable, I guess. To then add the link to RRI to the article so that the reader is directed to RRI rather than to the actual RS (or in addition to the actual RS but if only RRI is available on the web??? Then it is a clear direction to RRI.) Unforgivable and blatant POV-push to promote a highly-suspect site. And, my guess is that only POV-pushers support it. --Justanother 14:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
And yet you are fine with POV-pushing external links by cult apologists? Interesting. Smee 14:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
I don't think I am. What are you referring to? --Justanother 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I see sufficient support for the removal of that link and the use of any material that is a RS to improve the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't. And neither do other editors, apparently. Numerous articles include links in the EL sections to allegedly "POV" off-site sources of material... Smee 15:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
Neither do I. --Tilman 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the existance of such "convenience linking" to RRI. Past carelessness does not justify future errors. We are allowed to improve things around here if by improving we mean improving conformance with the policy and intent of this encyclopedia. There is only one class of editors that want to use RRI as "a convenient source". It may be one but it is certainly not the other --Justanother 15:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
We are not discussing "links to POV" sites. We are discussing if a specific link violates WP:EL. In this case, it does. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly how do you feel that it does? Smee 15:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
No it doesn't. Rick Ross is am established cult expert. --Tilman 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Justanother, I personally request that you address the content, and NOT the contributor, as per Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. And I am offended by your inappropriate usage of the Edit Summary space. An apology would be most appreciated. Smee 15:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
    • Smee, I am really clueless as to what you are referring to but well done on picking up on the tactic of accusing your opponents of WP:NPA. Your next lesson is to learn how to bait them to step over the line into clear attacks. This is not such an attack as I am commenting on your content - accusing me of PA when all I said was that past carelessness in including RRI "source" in articles does not excuse future errors in allowing such to remain. Now how exactly is that a PA? It is you who should be apologizing to me for a false accusation of PA. --Justanother 16:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Please STOP commenting on the contributor, and just comment on content. I find your entire comment above highly inappropriate and uncivil. Smee 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
      • Does this mean that I won't be getting an apology for the false PA accusation? --Justanother 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I did not accuse you of anything. I merely requested that you stop addressing actions by contributors, and instead address content as outlined in Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. But in any event, your Edit Summary comments are highly inappropriate - as is your refusal to STOP addressing the contributors. Smee 16:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
          • You accused me of "inappropriate usage of the Edit Summary space" and asked for an apology while referring to WP:NPA. You tell me what that is. But OK, out of courtesy to our visitor, let's let it drop here. Sound good? --Justanother 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I DO NOT appreciate your references to me personally in the edit summaries. It is highly inappropriate. And yes, your continued references to contributors as opposed to simply addressing content directly is a violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, as per their guidelines with emphasis bolded on those words in that original article. I request that you stop this, as well as your inappropriate use of edit summaries. Use the edit summaries for short succinct information about what was performed, not for addressing individuals. Thanks. Smee 16:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
    • Smee, when I am responding to a particular editor I find it helpful to tag it in the ES by using their name. But I will try to remember that you don't like it. Now, I will not discuss your false accusations of PA further out of deference to our visitor and I would appreciate it if you would do the same. Thanks. --Justanother 16:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Gentlemen, please refer to this guideline for background; it's pretty clear that referring to another editor in the course of commenting on content is perfectly allowable and certainly not automatically a violation of WP:NPA. However, please note as well that persistent false accusations of violations of WP:NPA is clearly a violation of WP:AGF. Note also that it is advised as well to make an effort to avoid mastadons]. BabyDweezil 17:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you, BabyDweezil, for that thoughtful and apropos and insightful commentary. Would you like a bit more tea? A biscuit? --Justanother 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ross site's content

I now understand what Smee was referring to. If you follow links within documents actually linked from the main page (the page linked here) then several additional news articles can be found. A little help would have been nice, given that I stated from the outset being completely new to the Ross site. I'm not going to weed through every Ross editorial to see how many news articles he links from them--so I take my promise back ... no thorough content analysis. However the manner in which these articles are linked is entirely unhelpful. If I come to this entry, as I did, and look at the external links, and follow them to the Ross site, I am faced with his commentary and an assortment of hand picked links. In order to get to most of the outside sources Smee is referring to I have to read his content first. In other words it is not a neutral directory of links but a POV labyrinth. No thanks. My criticism here is one simply of how unhelpful that categorization was, and how unhelpful that link is to someone new to this subject matter. I'm done. Sorry for sparking this argument. Thanks for your responses. Cheers.PelleSmith 16:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, Ross' own authorship is a very small percentage of the actual resources provided from that subpage. Most are scholarly works, and primary and secondary source material. Smee 16:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
Hey man, don't leave now! You make a lot of sense and we can use that around here. Please see my comments above re: the use of RRI as a "convenience". Thanks. If you are leaving 'cause of the arguing, don't worry, it is normal around here but I will make an effort to tone down my side of it out of courtesy to a newcomer. I am sure that the others will too. --Justanother 16:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I would say I am in agreement here with Smee:"By the same reasoning we should remove all links on Wikipedia to CESNUR related links, an equally if not moreso biased source". I think if we are to have parity than the rule should be applied equally to both sites (CESNUR and Rick Ross), as to not do so leaves an implied endorsement of one position.PEACETalkAbout 22:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. --Justanother 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Justanother,
Glad you concur with me on this matter. I would also say that perhaps it would be wise if we didn't comment on others cogent thoughts as one could be seen as poisoning the well. Besides, I recently found that I know many editors here and well I would like to keep things copasetic in case we should ever meet for Tea.PEACETalkAbout 23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You are being quite enigmatic, I am afraid. But you are certainly invited for tea. I'll set a place for you. --Justanother 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anson Shupe

While this article is locked (why?), you may want to contribute to Anson Shupe. Fossa has brought an innovative theory: why the Skeptics Society is like the KKK. --Tilman 17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to paraphrase me: I wrote that Skeptics Society and the KKK are activist organizations. As such, because they are activist organizations, their factual claims will likely be biased and thus, they are not reliable sources. Fossa?! 18:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I hadn't said any thing up until now but I am feeling that these analogies are serving some "other" purpose. First, we have the "N word" tossed about (written more than need be) saying that it is the equivalent of calling some one a "cult apologist". Now we are comparing Skeptics Society to the KKK because they are both activists?!?
So, let me first state that a "cult apologist" can not be discriminated against for their physical appearance and so it is not an equal comparison (One can not change ones color nor hide behind titles for protection). The KKK seeks to be superior, to oppress others based on their color, race and/or religion. So, comparing them to Skeptics Society is off by miles, and dare I say not to be compared to the KKK. To say they can be compared because they are both "activists" is like saying we here on this talk page all look alike because we all have two feet (presuming here). I think both of these show that there is a momentum of throwing in fuel to a fire to set it ablaze or to undermine the process by having everyone run out and get buckets of water (a way to defuse the stated assertion).PEACETalkAbout 19:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
True, although your essay isn't really necessary, since the issue at hand is re: WP:RS. Neither one is a WP:RS, so they do share that in common, and for the same reasons. Flaming racists such as Arthur Jensen and J. Phillipe Rushton, however, can be used as reliable sources because they have managed to get their racist work published in peer-reviewed journals. But for the purposes of WP:RS, the Skeptics and the hooded ones are in tne same boat. BabyDweezil 19:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, you didn't come up with that theory when CESNUR is being used as a source in other articles, despite its terrible reputation. Skeptic Magazine does have an editorial board that does also have reputable scientists. [13] --Tilman 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Truly a remarkable board of editors, which contains people who declare themselves as "magicians". I wonder what the scientific rating of this journal is? Does it get indexed in scientific databases? Do scientific journals quote their articles? Fossa?! 22:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Why do't they just get "The Amazing Randi" to make all those bad cults disappear? BabyDweezil 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If you had a clue about this (or about scientific research methods in general), you would know that James Randi has helped debunking the NATURE article about "water with memories" by Jacques Benveniste, which resulted in NATURE retracting their "peer-reviewed" article. Randi is a specialist for fraud in science. But then, NATURE is probably yet another "activist" organisation in your little world.
Other board members are university professors of reputable universities: U.C. Santa Barbara, Oxford University, UCLA Medical School, Berkeley, etc. --Tilman 06:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I did realize that there are a few reputable persons on the board. Nevertheless, it remains an activist publication: Professors are entitle to activism too, you know. A board of a scientific journal, however, does not tend to comprise "magicians". As to Nature: Where exactly did I claim that that is an activist journal? Fossa?! 11:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As I explained to you before, that "magician" is an expert for fraud in science, with a proven track record, e.g. for NATURE. --Tilman 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS does not require that they are to be listed in scientific databases: Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. So feel free to search yourself in databases (I do not have access to them, since I am not a university member) and tell us the result. Or - as you've tried before - go change the wikipedia policy. --Tilman 07:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS does not require that they are to be listed in scientific databases Now, aren't you lucky? Leaves ample room for your quackery. Fossa?! 11:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:NPA, and ask you to consider this a formal warning. The allegation (Leaves ample room for your quackery) is uncalled for. Especially considering that the discussion subject of this segment, Skeptic Magazine, is a publication against quackery of all kind. I have shown you the relevant wikipedia policy for sources, with is WP:RS. Not only you made up extreme requirements that are not Wikipedia policy, you also libelled the Skeptics Society by comparing it with the KKK. --Tilman 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
What you write, is, once again, nonsense: When I say that both KKK and Skeptic Society are activist organizations, I don't "libel" the Skeptic Society: I simply state a fact, which BTW doesn't mean that the goals of the Skeptics are as despicable as the ones of the KKK. In fact many activist organizations have goals I share. Nevertheless they are not reliable sources. Since you commit so much demagoguery against anyone who happens to disagree with you, I liken your proceeding to quackery, that is not very polite, but pales in comparison to your strategies of discussion. For example, your repeated misrepresentations of my words could well be considered libel. Now, be happy that you can present your propaganda quackery in the articles. Oh, and BTW, Skeptics Magazine presents one form of quackery against another form of quackery. Fossa?! 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You persist in your smear attacks. Again - stop this. --Tilman 18:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

It is interesting that members like Tilman and others state that all the reliable sources are the ones that agree with their views, and all the "dubious" sources are the ones that do not agree with their views. You think that one alleged or actual mistake, error, or discrediting make a person not an academic. The fact is that Ross is not a reliable source, but Hassan has somehow attained that status. If you want to maintain a NPOV you have to admit when an academic you disagree with might just be a reliable source. Next about these Claims of Shupe's support of this group and Melton's support of that group. Yes Melton was hired to assess a situation with a Japanese religous group. My question is what is the difference between what Melton did, and a business hiring an expert to assess the business. Simply being hired by the group is not enough to show bias. I have wondered myself if Melton was biased, but I said, simply being hired is not enough to demonstrate that biasJohn196920022001 12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Receiving monies from a cult or new religious movement would definitely tend to skew comments subsequently made about that group, especially in times of extreme duress, to the positive and not the negative... Smee 16:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
That may be true! You need to treat this situationally, and not with a sweeping generlaization. It is also possible, that even without bias, that a person could reach a wrong conclusion. There is a is whole spectrum of things that could be drawn from this. I don't agree with everything Melton has said. For example, he as supposedly said that former member of "cults" are not reliable for presenting information about the group. I disagree with this. Nevertheless he is still an academic subject to peer review by other academics. You must prove or demonstrate bias. Again each comment must be treated situationally. Have you actually contacted Gordon Melton to ask him about this? Right or wrong, his persepctive desearves be heard too John196920022001 05:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. A separate topic of discussion. Smee 05:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
OK, When and where can there be a civil discussion of this topic? John196920022001 05:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/u/l/Talk%7ECult_apologist_627e.html"