Talk:Anti-cult movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Talk:Anti-cult movement/Archive 1

Talk:Anti-Cult Movement/Archive 1
Pre-merge version


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

Contents

[edit] Sources required?

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

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

[edit] yet another factual accuracy warning

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

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

[edit] Existence of movement

Cut from intro (was 2nd paragraph):

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Additional Barker funding references

An article [1] at "Apologetics Resource Center" also has references for the Unification funding, including Margaret Singer's Cults in Our Midst. AndroidCat 03:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for deprogramming being "obsolete"

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

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

[edit] Isn't the opening sentence POV?

I'm a bit new here at WP, but isn't the very first sentence in the article POV in that it completely begs the question[2] of whether ACMs actually even exist or not?: "The anti-cult movement, sometimes abbreviated as "ACM", opposes cults and new religious movements that anti-cultists see as harmful or dangerous for society and individuals." In other words, the opening sentence baldly assumes that an ACM even exists, which is not a fact but rather an opinion, and an opinion which is challenged later in the article. Tanaats 01:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Hi Jossi. I notice you rv'd my change to the first sentence. The "ACM" is only referred to widely in the literature by proponents of NRM theory and is POV. It is considered a meaningless pejorative by cult critics. e.g. [3]. The term is therefore objectively "controversial" as I tried to introduce into the first sentence. I won't get into an rv war with you, but I'm willing to take this through dispute resolution to see how far I can get -- maybe your version will prevail but I'd like to see. The article should of course report on the POV of NRM theory, but it shouldn't state such "theory" as "fact". Tanaats 02:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a peculiarity of the ACM that its members deny its existence. Members of other movements, notably the feminist, anti-war, or anti-globalization movements, will lengthily explain to you how "big" and "important" their movement is. The reason for this difference is quite simple: These movements do not pretend to represent society's "objective" concerns, but the openly oppose other groups (chauvinist males, warmongerers, big business etc.). In contrast, the rhetoric of the ACM is that every "normal" and "rational" person would oppose "cults", which are considered deviant. However, there are no serious scholars, not even those who favor the ACM, who would deny its existence (granted that at times the use different terms to characterize the groups that make up the ACM). Fossa 15:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And the scholars who do deny its existance, you'd simply characterize them as "not serious" :-) Propaganda is so simple. --Tilman 17:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Who are these scholars and where do the publish these views? Are these scholars with a Ph.D. from a respectable university in a relevant field (such as Stephen A. Kent or Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi? Where do the publish these views? In a peer-reviewed journal? As an academic work? On their personal university website? Or are you referring to the Rick Rosses of this world? Do you have any references? Fossa 23:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, you rather arbitrarily dismiss my CSJ scholars, who are legitimate academics regardless of where they publish. You are certainly free not to respect their work because of where they publish, but scholars they are, and "serious" as all hell. Actually, I rather doubt that anyone will bother to publish an "ACMs don't exist" article anywhere else than the CSJ; after all none of your "serious academics" have bothered to publish an article, in any journal (whether peer-reviewed or not), demonstrating that they do exist! It doesn't matter how many of your "serious scholars" get together and assert that ACMs do exist because it's all smoke and mirrors, mere completely unverified claims and assertions. Not an ounce of proof!
And this is a bit of the "pot calling the kettle black" anyway because you don't have any references that demonstrate your assertion that ACMs certainly exist! Tanaats 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fossa. Hmmm...(1) You state "In contrast, the rhetoric of the ACM is that every "normal" and "rational" person would oppose "cults"..." This is merely inflammatory rhetoric since I doubt that you'll find any cult critic who states that every "normal" and "rational" person would oppose "cults", and (2) I agree with Tilman that you are strongly implying that in order to be a "serious scholar" once must support the theory that there is in fact an ACM, and that any scholar who doesn't support the concept is ipso facto not "serious". This may be your opinion but it is not a demonstrable fact.
For example, here is the opinion of a scholar (who strikes me as being pretty serious) on the ACM issue[4]:
The sociological literature on the "anti-cult movement" repeatedly makes the mistake of presuming that all organizations and individuals, who express concerns about cults, have uniform objectives, a common agenda, and close, interlinking relationships. In fact, there are numerous differences, and most "ACM" groups know very little about other groups and individuals.
Can you come up with studies from your "serious scholars" that actually demonstrate that an ACM exists? I suspect that all you will find in studies from the "serious scholars" are assertions and assumptions. But I could be wrong. :) In the absence of such studies the existence of an an ACM is pure assertion and speculation. Stating or implying otherwise in the article is POV. If you can find such a study then that strengthens your case but it doesn't eliminate the fact that the existence of an ACM is certainly certainly strongly disputed, and stating or implying anything else is still POV.
I'm not going to start an edit war with you, but I feel quite strongly about this and as I said to Jossi I'm certainly willing to take this through dispute resolution. The worst thing that could happen is that I might lose, in which case I'm no worse off than I am now. :) And it will be very educational for me in terms of learning the ways of WP. Tanaats 19:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Boy, I know, why I refeained to edit in this area, since every quack here has the same weight as Anson Shupe or David Bromley. The whole question, if a ACM exists or not is so banal, no serious scholar, not even Stephen Kent denies that. He might prefer different terms ("Organized opposition against cults" or something like that), and indeed one may quibble, about the question, if the ACM is a movement in the narrow sense of the word. But there is absolutely no question that there is some collectivity that mobilizes against "cults".
I refuse to discuss Cultic Studies Journal articles, as this is not an academic journal. Fossa 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Is a "serious scholar" any scholar that agrees with you? Regardless, apparently you cannot cite any source that demonstrates that such a thing as an ACM exists! Your statement that "There is absolutely no question that there is some collectivity that mobilizes against cults" is merely your OR that is unsupported by any study, even in something that you consider an "academic journal". And any statement in the ACM article that states, assumes, or implies that the existence of an ACM is a demonstrable fact is just more OR.
You are of course free not to discuss CSJ articles, but AFAIK journals that you consider "academic" aren't the only citable sources in WP.
Again, the opinion of NRM theorists regarding the existence of an ACM should of course be presented in an "ACM article", but the proposition that an ACM certainly exists is completely unverified, even by your "serious scholars" who I'm certain would have verified it if they could. Tanaats 00:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and as for "quack"... Besides bringing up WP:PA I would like to ask you whether only people with academic qualifications should be editing here? Tanaats 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure that you are aware of Bromley and Shupe's work (works that support my "thesis", which is really a banality), both of whom show that there is a ACM and nobody seriously disputes that in academia.
Journals, which I cannot cite on my academic CV (or anyone else for that matter) are not serious academic journals. Such is the CJS. And no "serious" scholar "verifys" anything.
Uh, and with regards to WP:PA: In this particular area, I indeed would disallow people with no academic qualifications to edit here. But that's my, not quack'sWikipedia's POV. Fossa 02:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So...this has all been very interesting, but let's draw a line under it: Are you folks absolutely resolved not to let me make the necessary edits so that the existence of an ACM is not presented or implied to be a fact? Is there any purpose to be served in discussing it further? I'm certainly willing to discuss it further if you want to. Tanaats 02:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, do as you please, put your anti-cult POV into practice. Fuck science. Fuck facts. I rather edit on the Balkans (which is bad enough) than with the bunch of zealots assembled here. Fossa 02:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your permission!
Hi Jossi, how about you? Will you also permit me to make my edits? Tanaats 03:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll take that as a "no" :). Ok, here goes with my first taste of the dispute resolution process! Tanaats 20:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

A bug because of an improper merge by user:Irmgard of the articles opposition to cults and new religious movements and anti-cult movement and then an improper renaming by user:Fossa of the first entry with the name Anti-Cult Movement. It can be corrected I think, but it needs admin help. Andries 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] "According to Eileen Barker"

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

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

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

Clearly, the term is ill-defined and labelling of individuals as belonging to the ACM is sometimes doubtful if not erroneous. For example, Massimo Introvigne labelled David C. Lane as belonging to the ACM. Here is what Introvigne wrote

"Although MSIA has been only occasionally a main target of the international anti-cult movement, it had its shares of controversies for three main reasons. First, the first and, for many years, the only scholar who devoted some attention to MSIA is a militant anti-cultist, David Christopher Lane. He is, additionally, a very peculiar kind of anti-cultist [..]" from [5]
Andries 18:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, regarding the passage "labelling of individuals as belonging to the ACM is sometimes doubtful if not erroneous", it is not just "doubtful", it is completely meaningless until the existence of an ACM has been substantiated. Tanaats 19:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not exceptional that movements cannot be clearly defined. The same applies for feminism with very vague boundaries and with few if any determining beliefs. I personally have a problem with concepts that lack a clear definition (which is a character trait). This article used to have a more elaborate description of beliefs of the ACM sourced to the book by David V. BarrettThe New Believers' May be somebody can restore it. This may not be the best source, but at least it is reasonable. The problem with the current article is that the definition by Bromley and Shupe is probably very outdated. Andries 19:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that very often a "movement" is not clearly defined. But "defining a movement" amounts to "defining a hypothesized movement" unless the very existence of the "movement" can be substantiated. In particular, you can't have "a more elaborate description of beliefs of the ACM" until the very existence of an ACM has been substantiated. Absent such substantiation, you are left with something more like "a more elaborate description of beliefs of the hypothesized ACM". Tanaats 19:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
How do you propose that the existence of a social movement should be substantiated? How do you know that the feminist movement exists, but that the ACM does not exist? These are probably difficult questions that fall outside of the scope of this Wikipedia, but since you raised them you can answer them on my talk page. Wikipedia only reports what sources have written. Its focus is not epistemology. Andries 21:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is ACM a controversial term

Can someone explain why ACM is a controversial term, and where it is described as such? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe we've already been over this at length. It's a controversial term because the ACM doesn't exist.

The sociological literature on the “anti-cult movement” repeatedly makes the mistake of presuming that all organizations and individuals, who express concerns about cults, have uniform objectives, a common agenda, and close, interlinking relationships. In fact, there are numerous differences, and most “ACM” groups know very little about other groups and individuals. Here is a partial list of organizations that Dr. Barker might categorize as “cult awareness groups” (all are from North America unless otherwise indicated):

Info-Cult/Info-Secte
American Family Foundation
Cult Information Service
Freedom of Mind Foundation
New England Institute of Religious Research
Maine Cult Information Network
Cult Hotline and Clinic of the New York Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services
Cult Awareness and Information Center (Australia)
Cult Awareness Center
Cult Information & Family Support (Australia)
Edmonton Society Against Mind Abuse
Ex-Cult Resource Center
FACTNet
FAPES (Argentina)
Forum Against Cults (Israel)
Free Minds
Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center
reFOCUS
Religious Movement Resource Center
REVEAL
The Ross Institute (RI)
Saskatchewan Citizens Against Mind Control
Mind Control Research Center (Japan)
I have not listed the dozens of organizations that fall under Dr. Barker’s “Countercult Groups.” Nor have I listed European organizations that are members of FECRIS (Fédération Européene des Centres de Recherche et d'Information sur le Sectarisme – European Federation of Centres of Research and Information on Sectarianism) and other European organizations. Moreover, I could have listed hundreds of individuals who have written about cultic groups and/or who offer services to people believing such groups have harmed them. Hence, scholars who generalize about “the” “anti-cult movement,” when they have had at best superficial contact with only a few organizations and individuals, make the same error as laymen and helping professionals who generalize from their limited experience to the wide world of cults/NRMs, in which there are thousands of groups.[6]

Tanaats 06:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick search on online databases of books and scholarly journals yield hundreds of sources on the subject of "anti-cult movement". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, argumentum ad populum is a common argument in favor the various NRM positions, including the purely hypothetical "ACM". But counting "most papers published" does not determine "truth".
[NRM] Sympathizers, who tend to be academics in sociology and religious studies, have published widely (see Bromley, 1998 for a recent review; also see www.cesnur.org), while critics, who tend with some notable exceptions to be mental health professionals, have not published as much and have not usually responded to sympathizers' critiques of the so-called "anti-cult movement" (ACM), which typically is presented as including professional and academic critics.[7].

Tanaats 06:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not seee anywhere any of your arguments substantiated. If the ACM does not exist, why this article? If the ACM deos not exist, why 100's of mentions in books, peer reviewed articles and other publications? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia writes about many subjects that do not exist. Nevertheless, the undisputable fact that the term is well-documented warrants the existence of this article. Andries 15:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Andries, for tacitly (as I understand you anyway) acknowleging that an ACM might not exist (sorry if I misunderstand you). And hell yes, the existence of this article is warranted to the max. It is a powerful controvery that deserves documentation in WP. It just shouldn't reflect an NRM POV. Nor a "cult critic" POV either. In a controversy such as this, where there is pure agumentation and absolutely zero proof on either side, neither position should be presented as "fact" in the article.
Jossi, as for whether the article should exist, please see my response to Andries. As for "substantion", there hasn't been any "substantation that an ACM does exist either! None at all. As for the 100's of mentions, they are just that "mentions", they certainly talk about the ACM as if it has been demonstrated to exist, and they make this implication in 100s of paper yes. But they conveniently never mention that there as been no substantion, zero, nada. So it is strong NRM POV to present the impression in the article that the existence of an ACM has been substantiated. Tanaats 18:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Tanaats, we only writet here what the ACM and reputable sources report about the ACM. This is not the place for adding your unsourced personal opinions to this article. This was quite a reasonable article and I am determined to keep it that way by requesting citations for your edits. Andries 19:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted to the previous version and removed the unattributed opinions. Good to see us agreeing, at least once in a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is quite a miracle that we agree about something. I only wonder about the term organized. I understand that sometimes individuals, like Tilman Hausherr, are also labelled as part of the ACM. This contradicts the term organized. Andries 20:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, that's me. I'm not member in anything, although I have loosely supported some organisations and been in the "leipzig award committee" (that is hardly organized :-)). I'm only slightly following the discussion. The ACM term is certainly a disputed theory, since the scholars don't agree on this (which the definition does mention later). (And I've witnessed many loud disputes in what some call "the ACM"!) Thus, it should be mentioned in the first sentence that it is a controversial term. Maybe I'll revert / change it to Tanaats version while you're sleeping :-) --Tilman 21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, true, that is of course, the confusing thing about the ACM: there seems to be no way to become a member, but this is no different from the feminist movement. Sympathizer would be a better word than "member". I do not even know the core beliefs of the ACM apart from the belief that some cults harm its members or at least that involvement in cults is risky. Following that last "definition" I am also a member of the ACM. Andries 22:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Andries, you are quite right here, a movement is organized to some extent, but it extends beyond movement organizations, that's true for the feminist movement as well as for the ACM. Sociologists tend to use the terms "members" or "participants", but they also distinguish between different types of membership. Surely, a movement member that is actively engaging in bringing about the movement cause is more active than somebody, who just pays his membership dues to a movement organization (e.g., Greenpeace as an organization for the ecology movement). A movement is also by no means monolithic in its tactics or goals (quite to the contrary, it's a definitional feature of a movement not to be monolithic). Fossa 01:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Andries... We have all been going in circles for quite some time. I'll stop arguing the same point over and over again. As Jossie says, third parties need to be involved. I've let myself get distracted, but I'll go ahead and start DR. I'll be back to this page when that starts. Tanaats 21:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite simple: The term is fairly uncontroversial in academic circles. Even those scholars, who are seen as sympathetic to the goals of the ACM wouldn't dispute that an ACM exists. But for many ACM members, who do not understand, or who do not want to understand what a "movement" is, the term is problematic, because it reveals that they are not pursuing some "objective, rational" goal, but interest politics. Conversely, many new religious movements have taken up the term in their own rhetorics, precisely, because it shows that it is two different interest groups/collectivities, which are pitted against each other. Fossa 01:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It is controversial, see "Kropveld, 2003, Langone 2005". --Tilman 08:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about articles from the Cultic Studies Review? I'm afraid that doesn't cut it. The Cultic Studies Review is not a journal, in which can publish to adbvance one's academic carreer. It's not neither published by a known academic publisher (such as Sage, Routledge, etc.) or a academic society (such as the American Sociological Association, American Psychological Association or similar.) Fossa?! 12:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
That is a "rule" that you just invented. But funny :-) --Tilman 16:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Some rules of academia, which I unfortunately did not invent, may appear "funny" to those not involved in the business, but, trust me, they work fairly well. Fossa?! 01:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Fossa, interest politics? Please explain. Regardless what one thinks of the ideology of the ACM, there can be little doubt that sympathizers of the ACM are sincerely convinced that they are doing a public service for the whole fo the population and are not involved in interest politics for a selected group of people, like the feminist movement. Andries 08:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
And so are members of the ecology movement, they also "are sincerely convinced that they are doing a public service for the whole of the population". So what? They nevertheless mobilize against some firms, which it considers to produce environmental hazards, while the ACM clearly mobilizes against some "cults", which it considers harmful. Fossa?! 12:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Fossa is a "problem user" from the german wikipedia, specialized in deleting whole paragraphs. His edit war activities have resulted in many definitions being blocked, some for months. He hasn't been too active in the english wikipedia because of WP:3RR. --Tilman 16:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to poison the well. So far, Fossa's has provided good arguments and done so civilly. Let's take his arguments in good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No, not civilly [8] Not that I care very much. Andries 17:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I make no bones about my opinion that I think that academic scholars should have more input into an encyclopedia than anti-cult activists or adherents of alternative religions. I am biased, I favor academic science, because I believe that an encyclopedia should deliver enlightened knowledge and that's not produced in "cults" or anti-cult movements but in academia. Sure, academia is not infallible and there are serious problems within academia, but still, it's in my view the best system to produce knowledge. Fossa?! 01:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article

This article has been worked on by hundreds of editors over several years, and describes all significant viewpoints about this subject supported by very accurate research and references. Before any editor make any substantial modifications such as deletions or large additions, please discuss first in talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I will, but do not expect me to repeat discussions that are already in the talk page or its archives. Andries 16:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. But if these discussions did not yield any consensus, unless there are new arguments, I do not see the need to revisit them either. I would encourage new editors to this article, to read the archives. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
No problemo. Tanaats 18:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Existence of an Anti-Cult Movement

This is a dispute about whether the existence of an "Anti-Cult Movement" (ACM) should be stated or implied to be a fact.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

  • The proposition that the existence of an "Anti-Cult Movement" is a known fact is nothing more than a theory/hypothesis/proposition/allegation/assumption. It is a matter of legitimate dispute and is in fact disputed. Therefore the existence of an ACM should not be stated or implied to be a fact in the article. Tanaats 22:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(See "Proposals for attaining NPOV" below.) 17.255.130.197 22:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Do you have credible academic sources, which dispute the existence of an anti-cult movement? If not, I'd suggest to keep it as a "fact". I realize that many people, who are part of the ACM, do not consider themselves part of the ACM. Yet, we cannot base social scientific facts on the question, if the people covered by these facts like the term or not. Fossa?! 01:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The theory is propagated by only a few cult apologists. And yes, there are credible academic sources, that dispute this existance. As already stated above and in the definition. Thus, it is a controversial term in academic circles. Kindof like the mind control controversy. Lets say it this way: the APA does not have a position whether there is an anti-cult movement :-) --Tilman 06:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have academic references for your opinion? Fossa?! 13:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In Germany last century, anti-cult activists have even sued each other. --Tilman 06:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • So what? That's not at all untypical for a movement: Some of its members fight against each other with various means, including legal ones. You'll find that in nationalists movements as well as in environmentalist movements. Fossa?! 13:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, ok. So any proof that these people don't act as a movement but are quite different, proves that they are indeed, a movement. Thank you. --Tilman 16:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Please publish your incisive criticism in an academic journal. To date, no one has published any ideas even remotely close to yours, so if they are scientifically sound, you will have no problems to get published and we will then be able to reference your thoughts here. Fossa?! 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like someone forgot to close a blockquote somewhere above here on the talk page - but I'm not going to go rooting around for it. As to the issue at hand here, the current intro language: Anti-Cult Movement, sometimes abbreviated "ACM", is a term used by some new religious movements scholars to refer to what they believe to be a coordinated opposition to cults and new religious movements that protagonists in this purported movement see as harmful or dangerous for society and individuals. The question of whether there actually is an ACM is debated, and the use of the term is disputed. - seems most appropriate and NPOV. Certainly there have been numerous allegations by a select few alleged cult apologists that there exists an Anti-Cult Movement, but the most we could probably say is that there is a debate as to whether this exists, not that there factually is a movement. Any citation claiming that a movement exists would be just that - a claim. There would have to be some sort of proof of organization for that claim to have any bearing. On the other hand, documents such as the Confidential Memorandum written by Jeffrey Hadden would certainly seem to suggest that there is an organized movement of cult apologists. Smeelgova 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
    • Now, there are a few academics advancing what you pejoratively label as "cult apologist movement". I believe, however, that they are not (yet?) mobilizing sufficiently to be called a movement and their numbers are very few. But if you find some academic references that would talk about them as a movement, feel free to present that as a fact. Unless you do find this evidence in academic articles, you will have to keep bickering about it on your private web page. Fossa?! 13:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As to your claim Any citation claiming that a movement exists would be just that - a claim. is certainly true. But claims presented w/o contest within academia should be treated as facts; otherwise we will arrive at a point, where one can say "Any citation claiming that the holocaust happened, would be just that - a claim.," which would obviously a preposterous statement. Now surely, this is an extreme example, but quite instructive, when it comes to the question, if all "claims" should be presented just as "claims". BTW: A movement is not necessarily a bad thing at all. Insofar is your choice of words ("allegation") is misleading. Fossa?! 14:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Please don't waste time. You have been pointed to academic sources criticizing the concept. Read them. --Tilman 16:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • No, I have been referred to the Cultic Studies Journal, which is an activist journal, not an academic one. Even there one cannot find any arguments, that the ACM does not exist, but only that the label is misleading. Fossa?! 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Where in the article are we asserting this as a fact? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that it is implied throughout the article that the ACM exists and this is how it should be. Again, no one disputes that there is some opposition against cults and within academia this is the most common term . Its existence also not disputed in academic circles, although there is some disagreement bout, what the best label is. Some activists deny its existence altogether (but others, like Steven Hassan have no problems to publish in anthologies on the ACM). Again, if Wikipedia wants activists to have a say on the encyclopedic article, it would open the floor to holocaust deniers and proponents of pseudo-scientific healing methods or earth radiation as well. Fossa?! 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if other editors could way in here at the Request for Comment - who are not so heavily involved in the dispute or who have a better balanced NPOV. Smeelgova 07:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
    • Beinig involved in the dispute, does not mean, one does not advance NPOV. It's a totally misguided idea, that NPOV arises from the interaction of POV and NPOV editors. It doesn't. Fossa?! 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fossa source vandalism

I'm possibly "that close" to violate WP:3RR. Someone else should please add the exact references that Fossa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is unable to find from the bottom of the text (despite that this is the format that is used by academic publications) and thus deleted. On the other hand, I (and others here) did take care to add proper footnotes in other definitions, so lets do it here, even if it is to avoid further vandalism by Fossa.

I might also do it myself tomorrow :-) --Tilman 18:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you can always edit your references into the article, when you use the proper format and they reflect the sentences you write. I did it now for you, but feel free to do it yourself in the future, it wouldn't violate WP:3RR, even if you did already do two reverts before. Fossa?! 18:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how reliable the 3RR-detection script is, whether it is immune to false positives. --Tilman 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals for attaining NPOV

The articles's new lead sentence is a wonderful start. Here are other changes I propose in order to move toward NPOV...

  • Add the adjective "some" to the word "academic" in the first paragraph. Not all "academic scholars" use the term.
  • Outside of metallurgy, the term "amalgam" has a meaning of "a mixture or combination" or "a combination of diverse elements".[9] If the word "organized" is inappropriate in the first paragraph, then something should be included in the definition to reflect this definition of ACM that is offered in the second paragraph. Since the word "amalgam" is used in the definiton, I propose "Anti-Cult Movement, sometimes abbreviated "ACM", is a term used by some academic scholars to refer to an amalgam of those who offer opposition to cults and new religious movements".
  • The phrase "People, who are considered to partake in the anti-cult movement" implies the existence of an ACM and doesn't say who does the "considering". Change to "Cult critics".
  • The phrase "Depending on their background and goals, such individuals and groups are active in various fields" implies acceptance of the preceeding definition. Also, "scholars" was used just above by those who propose the existence of an ACM. Change to "Depending on their background and goals, scholars, other individuals and groups who criticize cults are active in various fields."
  • Change "by their critical former members is generally not part of the ACM" to "by their critical former members is generally not described as being part of the ACM".
  • Regarding "The ACM is to be distinguished from the concerns and opposition by the Christian countercult movement that unlike the ACM mainly concerns itself with theological differences"... (1) the usage "the ACM" assumes the existence of an ACM, (2) see below for a discussion re the POV of "CCM". Change to "The proposed ACM is to be distinguished from the concerns and opposition by Christian "anti-cult apologists".
  • Regarding "The families of these young people became worried about what they considered bizarre belief systems and the behavior of their children and started to organize themselves in grassroot movements some of which merged into regional or national organizations."... It ignores their "worry" over use of unethical psychological influence tecniques. Change to "The families of these young people became worried about what they considered bizarre belief systems and the behavior of their children. They were also concerned about what they saw as the unethical use of psychological influence techniques. They started to organize themselves in grassroot movements, some of which merged into regional or national organizations."
  • Not all scholars considered themselves to be studying "alternative religions". Change "The cult controversies in the 1960s and 1970s also resulted in growing interest in scholarly research on alternative religions and the creation of academic organizations for their study", to "The cult controversies in the 1960s and 1970s also resulted in growing interest in scholarly research on what some scholars considered to be "alternative religions" and others considered to be "cults", and the creation of academic organizations for their study.
  • Change "Taxonomies" to "Taxonomies offered by supporters of the ACM concept", thus identifying the following section as a POV.
  • Regarding the phrase "started with family members of adherents who had problems with the sudden changes in character, lifestyle and future plans of their young adult children who had joined NRMs"... The word "problems" can be considered pejorative as in, for example, "What's your problem?" Furthermore, their concerns weren't restricted to those stated. Change to "started with family members of adherents who had concerns with the sudden changes in character, lifestyle and future plans of their young adult children who had joined what the family members considered to be a cult. They also believed that unethical psychological manipulation techniques had been applied."
  • "Cult watching groups" is a term largely used by proponents of NRM theory and is therefore "loaded" when used as the title of a section describing cult critics. Change "Cult watching groups and individuals, and other opposition to cults" to "Opposition to cults".
  • Cult critics are also concerned about unethical use of psychological influence techniques. Change "are often centered around an unreliable charismatic leader; and may use deceitful ways of recruiting and retaining members" to "are often centered around an unreliable charismatic leader, may use deceitful ways of recruiting and retaining members, and may unethically employ psychological influence techniques to recruit and retain members.
  • Change "Deprogramming has apparently been abandoned by the anti-cult movement" to "Deprogramming has apparently been abandoned by cult critics". Otherwise factual existence of an ACM is implied.
  • Cult critics don't "criticize new religious movments", they criticize groups that they consider to be "cults" which is not only a subset of these "religious movements", but which also includes some groups that are completely secular in nature. Change "A very controversial subject between sympathizers and critics of new religious movements" to "A very controversial subject between sympathizers of "new religious movements" and critics of "cults"".
  • Change "Some of those opponents are affiliated with the ACM" to "Some of those opponents are affiliated with organizations that criticize and educate about cults." Otherwise the sentence implies that existence of an ACM is a fact.
  • The term "counter-cult movement" is not a term used by the people being described, and is a technical terme used by proponents of NRM theory. Change the phrase to "but some of them also engage in "countercult apologetics".
  • The term "cult watching group" is not used by cult critics, it is a technical term coined by proponents of NRM theory. Change "Some have even have founded cult watching groups" to "Some have even have founded cult awareness groups".
  • Change "Cult-watching groups often use testimonies of former members" to "Cult awareness groups often use testimonies of former members". (See above.)
  • Regarding the section starting with "A somewhat similar movement that is generally not considered part of the ACM exists within established religion and is called the Christian countercult movement (CCM)".
Objections
  • It is stated just below in the article that the term "countercult apologetics" has been in use since the seventies, and that it designates a "conglomerate" rather than a "movement".
  • If the term "CCM" developed out of the term "countercult apologetics", then it was the proponents of NRM theory that did the developing. Those who engage in "countercult apologetics" don't call themselves a "movement".
Proposal
I propose the following rewrite:

There are many individuals and groups who criticize cults on the basis of religious, rather than secular, grounds. Two basic arguments for opposition to cults and new religious movement can be discerned in among countercult apologists: one is mainly based on theological differences, the other is based on defending human self-determinism and targets mainly groups (religious and non-religious) with alleged cultic behavior according to the definition of the secular opposition to cults.

This focus on theological differences has a very long tradition in Christian apologetics. Since the 1970s, "countercult apologetics" has been in use, which actually does not designate a movement but a conglomerate of individuals and groups of very different background and scholarly level. Other designations are countercult ministries, discernment ministries (mainly used by such groups themselves) or heresy hunters (mainly used by their opponents).
  • Change "The secular anti-cult movement is not an United States" to "Secular criticism of cults is not a United States". Otherwise it assumes that the existence of an ACM is a fact.
  • Change the heading "Cult watchers" to "Other opponents". Again "cult watchers" is not a preferred term among these "opponents".
  • Regarding "While only a small fraction of the anti-cult movement has been involved in deprogramming, several deprogrammers (including its pioneer Ted Patrick) have served prison terms for the practice, while others have been acquitted in court"... the word "some" has less spin than "several. Change to "While only a small fraction of cult critics has been involved in deprogramming, some deprogrammers (including its pioneer Ted Patrick) have served prison terms for the practice, while others have been acquitted in court.
  • Change the heading "Reaction of the anti-cult movement" to "Reactions from cult critics". Otherwise it implies that the existence of an ACM is a fact.
  • The heading "By protagonists or organizations considered part of the ACM, from an activist point of view" has a couple of problems. (1) It doesn't say who "considers" these people and organizations to be part of "the ACM", (2) the words "the ACM" imply that an ACM actually exists, which is a proposition that these very people and organizations vigorously dispute, My original rewrite of "By protagonists or organizations labeled as part of the ACM" was rv'd, but I hereby propose it again. Tanaats 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "Not all "academic scholars" use the term.". True. Academics, who write about rockets or pandas do not use the term. However, within the field of NRM research (which is, admittedly, tiny), the term is common coinage.
    • amalgam is indeed a dubious metaphor that should be substituted for something more specific.
    • The phrase "People, who are considered to partake in the anti-cult movement" implies the existence of an ACM and doesn't say who does the "considering". Change to "Cult critics". As before: No-one in academic circles disputes the fact, that the ACM exists, some might want to call that animal differently, but ACM is still the most common term. We are not gonna change to something that is more agreeable to "cult critics". This is not the anti-cultpedia. ACM is the most common term and, frankly, "critics" is a euphemism in this context.
    • next bullet point: Same thing: Not contested in academic circles -> fact. Otherwise, we will have to give creationists a considerable say on evolution.
    • On the question of ACM vs. CCM: There are various definitions of the ACM, some include, some don't include the CCM.Fossa?! 23:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amalgam? Collection?

Fossa, re "collection" vs. "amalgam"... What did those two scholars actually say? Thanks. Tanaats 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bromley and Shupe have used a number of words to characterize the collectivity of the ACM. I am not aware of "amalgam", but that doesn't mean that they did not use this term, too. Sociology, unlike mathematics, does not always use unique terms for the same phenomena: This is an indirect quote, so we do not have to use exactly the same vocabulary, but just to rephrase the meaning of their work and "collectivity" is on target. But if you have an alternative suggestion, I am all ears. Fossa?! 01:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No suggestion. That explains it, thanks.
Re not always using unique terms for the same phenomena, yes we chem majors used to consider sociology one of the "fuzzy subjects".  :) Tanaats 01:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I majored in math and physics, and, believe me, it was difficult for me to adjust to sociological terminology in the beginning (I eventually got my Ph.D. in sociology, in case you haven't checked on my CV yet). I am still not all too happy about this lack of common terminology, but, alas, I cannot decree one all by myself, and I am unsure, if could, that that would be the best solution. Having said that, sociology might be fuzzy, but arbitrary, it ain't. There is so to speak, a corridor of what can and what cannot be said based on sociological research. Fossa?! 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Opinions differ, I guess. As far as I can see from this talk page, sociologists are free to theorize and propound to their heart's content without having to back it up with any evidence. Just the fact that they are "scholars", that they publish their opinions in the right journals, that they are proper "academics", and that there are lots of them that agree on something seems to be enough. They apparently see no need at all to demonstrate objectively that their conculsions are true, I don't see how it can be called a "science" at all. But I probably shouldn't judge the whole field solely based on what I've read here.
And I'm a only a quack who shouldn't even be participating on this article. I'll drop this thread now. Go ahead and let me have it.  :) Tanaats 02:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss the article rather than express opinions. Opinions may be fascinating, but this talk page are not a replacement for a discussion forum. It would also be helpful to keep the discussions within a mature tone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You're quite right. No more opinions.
As for "mature tone", I apologize. I took my example from the way Fossa treated me awhile back on this page. You're quite right again though, I shouldn't have done that and I'll stop it. Tanaats 03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you reverted to some much older version, and so you've deleted the exact references to Langone and Kropveld, which led to the trouble with Fossa. --Tilman 22:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't you worry, I restored those references. Fossa?! 23:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "coordinated effort" strawman argument of anti-cultists, who are unable/unwilling to understand scientific literature

Nowhere in the literature it is mentioned that the ACM is "coordinated". In fact, not a single movement is coordinated, since it lacks a central organization. What is true, that within the movement some coordinated groups (aka as "formal organizations") exist, but the whole of the movement cannot and is not coordinated. This is a typical straw man argumenent by activists. I deleted it and demand exact references for any re-insertion. Fossa?! 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of paragraphs

The spin versions of the introduction "criticize" the sociological position sentence by sentence. I summarized both positions in two paragraphs as Fairness of tone in NPOV suggests. Fossa?! 14:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACM is a sociological concept and exists as such

I am currently reworking the "definition" of the ACM to make more explicit that this is a sociological concept. As such, it undoubtedly exists, as numerous publications (both roughly "pro " and "anti" cult exist. This might make it more bearable for the "cult critics" here to acknowledge that there is a concept, as it is only a "social scientific" one. You can then feel free to dismiss social science as "fuzzy", "political", whatever. Fossa?! 17:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged Hadden memorandum

Any independent confirmation that such a memorandum indeed exists and that the text on the activist site is authentic? If not, it must be left out, as Wikipedia is not rumor mill, and anyone could fabricate such a memorandum. Fossa?! 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So you claim to be a NRM scholar but have never heard of that infamous memo, although it has been discussed in several publications already, at least one of them academic? Or are you just wikilawyering again and insist it to be deleted, because the memo itself was not published in some academic journal?
Hadden himself authenticated it: [10] --Tilman 21:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
need a scan? [11] --Tilman 21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have heard of the memo, but to date I haven't had any independent confirmation that its text is authentic. A Nurel-l posting by Hadden himself is good enough for me. Fossa?! 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In reading Hadden's email, I found many of his arguments to be quite to the point. [self-refactored off-topic comment] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am unsure, what you mean by that ("this part is the best"), but mind control and brainwashing theories have been all but abandoned by the ACM (not to speak of academia). Insofar that comment is dated. Fossa?! 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
(Hope this is on topic.) Opinions differ... Amitrani, Marzio, 2001, quoting Benjamin Zablocki, professor of sociology and one of the reviewers of the rejected DIMPAC report, 1997:

Many people have been misled about the true position of the APA and the ASA with regard to brainwashing. Like so many other theories in the behavioral sciences, the jury is still out on this one. The APA and the ASA acknowledge that some scholars believe that brainwashing exists but others believe that it does not exist. The ASA and the APA acknowledge that nobody is currently in a position to make a Solomonic decision as to which group is right and which group is wrong. Instead they urge scholars to do further research to throw more light on this matter. I think this is a reasonable position to take.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs).
Unfortunately, you don't reference your quote properly, so I cannot check it. I'd be surprised, if Zablocki would be able to say that in a peer-reviewed article or an academic book. Whatever a "Solomonic (Salomonic?)" decision maybe, it's clear that nobody at least among academic sociologists, still seriously entertains such theories. Most ACM activists themselves have abandoned it. And, BTW, academic consensus is not achieved by APA or ASA decisions, but by publications in relevant journals. Fossa?! 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I did leave off the reference. You wouldn't like it anyway, as it's one of those anti-cultist journals. I won't make a further reply as I'm sure that further discussion would just get us spiraling down into each repeating the same old arguments again. As a matter of fact, I think I did let myself get drawn into an "opinion" discussion anyway. Sorry about that. Bowing out now. Tanaats 00:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, may be you can stop giving pious sermons on other how to behave regarding talk page discipline. Andries 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Andries. You are right. I am refactoring that off-topic comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Staying close to the sources

When reading this article, I have the impression that editors have freely interpreted sources and have now stayed close to the source. A summary is fine, but a free interpretation is not. Andries 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be more specific: Which summary exactly do you find inaccurate? Fossa?! 22:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
For example, how is the following statement from the entry supported by its citation?
"As is typical of social and religious movements, no unified ideology exists."
sourced to e.g., Barker, Eileen. 2002. "Watching for Violence: A Comparative Analysis of the Roles of Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups." pp. 123-148 referenced by preliminary version online
Please note that people may get very irritated with you if they eventually come to the conclusion after doing a lot of effort and paying a lot of money to get the books that you have repeatedly misrepresented various sources. So please correct it soon if there any free interpretations of sources. Andries 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
And I am getting irritated, if somebody from the Netherlands, where excellent public libraries are abundant, chides me for using, excuse me, sources not freely available on the internet.
To your question: Quite simple, Barker speaks of five different "cult-watching groups", two of which are clearly part of the ACM (CAG/CCG) and one of which is at least partially involved in the ACM (ROG). These three groups are depicted as having quite different ideologies. Note: I am not saying that that is a useful typology (in fact, it is one, which I would not endorse), but it is one of many typologies that aim to depict ideological variance w/i the ACM. I will add a few more in the near future. Fossa?! 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I did not chide you for using sources that are not freely available on the internet. I only wanted to make it clear that if you use sources that are only available by paying a lot of money and in universtity libraries (not public libraries) then people may get angry with you after they have done a lot of effort to get these sources that you very freely interpreted these sources, such as you did in this case. No, I am unconvinced that the citation that you gave supports the statement in the article, because Barker does not lump in that article the ACM and the CCM together. It is your personal conclusion based on Barker's article that Barker does not make. This way of citing may be fine for your academic articles, but it is inappropriate in Wikipedia. Andries 17:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This way of citing may be fine for your academic articles, but it is inappropriate in Wikipedia. (about summarizing a long argument in one sentence). YMMD. Fossa?! 19:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with Opposition to Cults and NRM

The distinction betweem ACM and CCM is a minority opinion in academia. Even those who propose the distinction acknowledge that fact. Wikipedia is not the place to lobby for minority opinions, but instead should follow the majority opinion. Wikipedia should use the lemma that is the most common label for this opinion: "Anti-cult movement". Fossa?! 12:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

ACM is a minority term. It's actually a "lite" hate term used by Bromley+Shupe and their fans, in an effort to lump different people together and to accuse them of practicing some evil methods. Yourself have claimed in discussions "the ACM does this", "the ACM does that", etc, etc. --Tilman 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a "lite hate term"? Give me a break? Who, besides anti-cultists like you, claims that?
Now, let's see:
* CSA Illumina
** "Anti-Cult Movement" 26
** "Counter-Cult Movement" 1
** "Opposition to cults" 0
* Google Scholar
** "Anti-Cult Movement" 204
** "Counter-Cult Movement" 20
** "Opposition to cults" 10 (2, if restricted to finds w/o "anti-cult" also mentioned
* Library of Congress
** "Anti-Cult Movement" 2
** "Counter-Cult Movement" 0
** "Opposition to cults" 0

Thus: ACM is at worst more than 10 times more frequent than its competitor labels. Do you have another suggestion? Or should we proceed with merging the two terms? Fossa?! 15:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

People love labels. Bromley+Shupe certainly use it for something they've never understood. I don't mind having the ACM definition, after all, it is used as a hate term by those who attack cult critics (what you've proven right here :-)). --Tilman 15:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any sources to back your opinion? Fossa?! 15:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Fossa behavior here in Wikipedia, using the ACM word as a smear label. --Tilman 15:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Fossa, regarding your question to Tilman. Read Barker, Eileen. 2002. "Watching for Violence: A Comparative Analysis of the Roles of Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups." pp. 123-148 referenced by preliminary version online
"These labels are not altogether satisfactory, but they have been chosen partly in an attempt to avoid at least some of the derisory connotations and dismissive arguments that have come to be associated with categories such as "anti-cultist" and "cult-apologist"."
Andries 17:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a source and I did not use it as a smear label. My private opinion, that the illiberal quacks of the opposition against "cults" and new religious movements have too much power does not affect my choice of label, which is purely guided by social scientific conventions. If CCM or OACANRM would be the most common label, I would use that one. Fossa?! 17:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with the merge because clearly opposition to cults comes from more sides than from just the ACM. I am not convinced by Fossa arguement that the the discinction between CCM and ACM is a minority opinion because I do not trust anymore the sources that he cites because of his proven very free interpretation of souces. In addition, two of the most prominent scholars, Melton and Barker do make the distinction between the ACM and CCM. Andries 15:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
"The CCM has more often been subsumed as a mere variant of the larger ACM (e.g. Barker, 1982; Bromley & Shupe, 1987; Shupe & Bromley, 1980)." (p. 339 of Douglas Cowan: "Exits and Migrations: Foregrounding the Christian Counter-Cult," Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2002, pp. 339–354.) Fossa?! 16:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Barker has changed her opinion according to the article that you used as reference and the only recent source that you provide is Cowan. Andries 16:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? Barker has changed her opinion? Is that your free interpretation or is it a quote? And Cowan may be my only reference for the fact that his is a minority opinion and you have no references whatsoever. Also, You still did not answer to my long list of scholarly sources above. Fossa?! 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that when you read the recent article by Barker then she does not lump the ACM and the CCM together. A free interpretation? May be, but in this case I did not use this Barker's article to back up contents in the entry, but only to back up my opinion about article naming, so the standards are not so high. And it seems that Cowan based his opinion among others on Barker's older writings. Andries 17:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Now "anti-cultist" is indeed a term I would avoid, it sounds less respectable than ACM. Barker herself does not use the term ACM in this article, but her typology has not caught on and you still did not answer the question: Why are there numerous references to the ACM in scholarly literature, much more than any other term? And why does Cowan represent his as a minority opinion? Who on earth among scholars proposes the label "Opposition to Cults and New Religious Movements"? Fossa?! 17:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, Cowan based his opinion on the older writings by Barker who in her later writings showed that she changed her mind. I admit that that Oppposition to cults etc is not a very common term, but clearly the entry ACM cannot contain media bias or apostates that is now treated at Opposition to cults and new religious movements and hence many assertions will be off-topic here. Anti-cultist is only the adjective of ACM. She clearly deliberately avoided the term ACM. Andries 17:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not advocating media bias: I looked at the most important social scientific database, google scholar, and the largest research library. The result was unianimous and reflects Cowan's assessment. All what is written under "OTCNRM" can be written under this lemma as well (provided it is legitamate under either lemma). Fossa?! 18:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I do not think that everything that is now at the lemma Opposition to cults etc. can be written here. How can media bias or apostate opposition reasonably be part of the ACM is beyond me. I think that lemma is a German/Dutch term. It will be clear that I do not mind if you use German terms but others may not understand you. Andries 18:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You have a point with respect to the media bias. Indeed, that does only marginally belong into ACM, maybe in form like "effects of the ACM". I suggest that the media bias should be moved into the NRM/cult lemmata. Actually, lemma sounds Greek to me. Seriously, it's the appropriate English term, too, just it has not caught on here. "Lemma" is the title of the article, in case someone hasn't figured that out yet. Fossa?! 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Lemma is mostly a mathematical term. I always use the term "Definition". --Tilman 19:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
And "definition" is just patently wrong. An encyclopedia does not "define", it explicates. Fossa?! 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
How to explain the contradiction that according to NRM scholars the Netherlands do not have an anti-cult movement when there is still opposition against cults? Clearly this example shows that merge is wrong. Andries 19:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you aware of the work of Barend van Driel? He does speak of the ACM, but it's just not that prominent in Continental Europe, as parts of the ACM have been co-opted by the state in Western Europe. Fossa?! 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Barend van Driel is just the european sockarm of cult apologist James Richardson.--Tilman 09:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Fossa now has reported me as a vandal for disagreeing with his merger wish. --Tilman 15:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I have reported you for removing the merger template, not for your disagreement with my "wish". Fossa?! 16:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:VANDAL: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia...Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." Tanaats 16:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
A template is not "content", and to delete a template even though one has been several times made aware of the fact that that violates policy is bad faith. Fossa?! 16:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that removing the template is disruptive, though not vandalism. Andries 16:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me, as long as it's gonna be removed again, I don't care what you call it. Fossa?! 17:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Fossa, a template is not "content" and therefore removing it cannot by definition be "vandalism". "Vandalism" has a very specific meaning. Tanaats 17:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Btw, Andries, you've been here in the past too. Wasn't there such a merger wish here before, which was dropped? --Tilman 16:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
yes, a merger the other way round which was then renamed by user:Fossa. Andries 16:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Tilman, what's the appropriate way for me to weigh in on this? Tanaats 16:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The appropriate way would be to give arguments and sources just like I do. I am the only one here, who has referred to any sources. See also WP:V. Fossa?! 16:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, your arguments could rather be used against the merger. --Tilman 17:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you are once again creating a smoke screen. Name the specific argument, that could be used against a merger. Fossa?! 17:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
See your own edits here :-) --Tilman 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thus, you have neither an argument, nor a source. Fossa?! 18:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I was actually referring to the bogus vandalism report. Tanaats 17:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't bother. I'm used to this from the german wikipedia :-) He also reported me (falsely) for 3RR violation re: Anson Shupe --Tilman 17:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? You are used to this from the German Wikipedia? Poor you. So battered. Do you have any proof for your statement? Fossa?! 17:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Your own edits :-) --Tilman 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not merger is jusfied, and to me an organized ACM is only a subset of those who are more critical of the claims of NRMs, if not merged, useful information on one that applies to the other should be referenced. For one example, the information in the ACM article [[12]], followed to here[[13]] is relevant to any discussion of the activities and relative credibility of former members, which is important to the article Opposition to Cults and NRMs and to discussions about NRMs. I think we need to consider the readers here and look at the various articles related to this subject as a whole for deconfliction and consistency. --Dseer 07:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I oppose the merger. The ACM article is about a disputed sociological concept. "Opposition to cults...", although it is currently heavily POV towards NRM theory, is about the reality rather than about a concept. They are different topics. Tanaats 17:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool it, please?

Could you please cool it? All the sarcasm and rapid-fire comments about other editors is really not useful. Please avoid making comments about other editor's motives and intentions, and poisoning the well. It would be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do think it's quite useful to think about the intentions of authors. It's not like "we're all equal and we all have the same goal in mind: an encylopedia". We don't. We all have an agenda, and most agendas are not encyclopedic. Fossa?! 22:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Jossi is right: we should focus on the edits, not the editors. Anyone who pursues an agenda contrary to the aims of this project should be dealt with in another forum, such as an RfC. This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the article. -Will Beback · † · 01:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, you shouldn't focus on the edits either. It's the finished article that matters. 87.127.71.250 19:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Monica Pignotti

This is the text of a usenet post from Monica Pignotti, pointing to some primary sources, which I'll use later.

Here are the details on cult "researcher" Eileen Barker's book being funded by the Moonies:

In 1993, Barker's organization, INFORM (sorry, Dennis, no relation to you) lost funding by the U.K. government due to criticism about the Moonies contributing to her funding for her book. In 1989, a story came out by the Religious News Service, stating that Barker's book was funded by the Unification Church (the Moonies) and that Barker "freely admits that the Unification Church paid all her expenses to attend 18 conferences in Europe, New York, the Caribbean, Korea and South America." Barker stated that "MY UNIVERSITY AND THE SSRC (a U.K. government grants council) REGARDED THIS ATTENDANCE NECESSARY FOR MY RESEARCH." (emphasis added). As a result of the controversy over this funding, Barker's organization lost their U.K. government funding.

Sources: A. Carley, "Government Grant to Cult Watchdog Stirs Flap in Britain", Religious News Service, Jul. 10, 1989, pp. 6-7.

A. Meale, "INFORM - Cut in Funding by the Home Office," Press Release, House of Commons, London, Nov. 15, 1993.

I would say that Barker's work is about as credible as a study on the dangers of cigarette smoking funded by Phillip Morris.

End of Post. --Tilman 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] e.g. vs. i.e.

someone needs to read the following article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.g._vs._i.e.

and see about correcting the error in the opening paragraph.

Answered on user's talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] List of cults

Is there a list of cults available please?

List of groups referred to as cults, Groups referred to as cults in government reports, also check out what's in Category:Cult related lists and the broader Category:Cults. Joie de Vivre° 16:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content moved from Third-party views on Falun Gong

The Anti-Cult Movement (ACM) began in the 1970s in the United States as an organised opposition to new religions.[1] Its constituents are former sect members, parents of members, clergy of competing religious groups, fundamentalists and mental health practitioners. Ian Johnson contends that the movement lost steam after western anxieties over cults subsided in 1990s, and that now ACM members are mostly confined to adherents of established religions--"in other words, people with a vested interest in attacking new groups."[2] The "highly organised movement" is spearheaded by the American Family Foundation, a Christian-right group, and now has branches in various parts of the world.[1][2] The movement is based on the theory of "brainwashing," and specifically, that new social or religious movements may "brainwash" people into participating in them, use "mental control techniques" to prevent them from leaving, and generally rob them of their free will. Edelman and Richardson writing in the Journal of Church and State, maintain that this is an "unsupported" theory with no scientific basis. They suggest the ACM has an "unsavoury history" which includes kidnapping, and is not a reliable source for scientific information.[1]

the above has been moved to this talk page from Third-party views on Falun Gong, if it can be used to improve this article, please do so. --Simon D M (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories:

There seems to be some disagreement about what categories should be added to this article. Rather than getting into an edit war, let's talk about it. Mmyotis (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the category 'cult' because the article is already in a sub-category. Most of the articles in 'new religious movements' are about the actual groups, but if it is felt that this article should go there, I won't dispute it.--Editor2020 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the addition of the category 'cults' is redundant since 'anti-cult terms' is already contained within it as a subcategory, so I agree that the edit should stand.
With respect to the category 'new religious movements', there is no existing link between this article and that category. Since the purpose of categories is to help people find related information, and since a person researching cults or the anti-cult movement might well appreciate finding the category 'new religious movements', I think that it should be included in this article. An alternate and perhaps more elegant solution would be to include the category 'new religious movements' as a subcategory to the category 'cults'.
The other category that was removed is 'activism'. Since this article includes a listing of anti-cult activists, I believe a category link is appropriate. I suggest adding the category 'activists by issue' which is a subcategory of 'activism by issue' which is a subcategory of 'activism' as the appropriate link.
Does that sound reasonable? Mmyotis (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
'New religious movements' was added as a subcategory to the category 'cults'. Mmyotis (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to cults and to new religious movements

There has been an attempt to edit the introduction to this article to introduce weasel words that significantly detract from the encyclopedic style of the article. I have undone the edit twice now and called for some discussion on the talk pages.

The edit changes the phrase "oppose cults and new religious movements" to "oppose what they see as "cults" and "new religious movements". I assume that this is basically an attempt to point out that not all people agree on what constitutes a cult or new religious movement. That could well be true, but the introduction is not the place to do that. If the editor wishes to add content on that subject they are welcome and encouraged to, but their edit of the introduction adds weasel words that detract from the encyclopedic style prefered by wikipedia. Mmyotis (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree and have re-reverted. The word cult is one of the Wikipedia "Words to Avoid" for good reason. In ordinary English it has NO positive meaning, and is purely used pejoratively to mean a group of people that the author dislikes. Using it in an article holds strongly negative connotations. The article needs to say that the ACM targets groups that 'it considers' are damaging and destructive, that is to say "cults." These are not weasel words, intended to hide meaning, they describbe the situation precisely. Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC) And the introduction is precisely the place to do that. Rumiton (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The subject of the article is anti-cult movements and the word Cult is a recognized and defined term. I have suggested you take your concern and discuss it with references in a new section of this article. That is a fair suggestion. I've asked for a third opinion. I hope we can work this out in a neutral way. Mmyotis (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would add that Cult is a word to avoid only as it is applied to a particular group. This article does not address any specific group and therefore there is no reason to avoid its use. Mmyotis (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Makes no sense to me. It's a word to avoid, period. My Oxford Dictionary defines it as a "system of worship; especially derogatory, of a transient fad." It is a tabloidal word, not an encyclopedic one. Rumiton (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I don't think the text "what they see as" is appropriate, and it shouldn't be included. I also don't understand why in that edit, the entire History section is being commented out. Can someone explain to me why that is? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please represent your comment in a way that makes sense. Rumiton (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Er... what? All I want to know is why you commented out the History section in your edits. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not. Maybe someone else did. Did you leave out a word after "introduce"? Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, heh. Sorry. Also, yes, the History section was commented out. Look at the History section in your edit, and then at the History section in this edit. One's there, one's not. The <!-- and --> added in your edits comment out that whole section. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That is strange. But it wasn't me. I never done it. It was the other guy. No really. I just readded the "groups they see as cults" stuff, which I think is a small point but important. Suit yourself with the History section. I saw this happen to someone else once and at the time I doubted his protestation that it wasn't his edit. Rumiton (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Nah, that's okay. It may be something that just got caught up in all the undos. As long as you're not claiming responsibility for it, that's fine. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)