Talk:Cult/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

other archives talk:Cult/archive1, talk:Cult/archive3

Contents

Resolution to modify the article

The problem that is apparent now is that article gives an impression that "cult" is a scientific term and even gives criterias of cults. To restore balance, it is important to 1) substitute the word "cult" with "new religiuos movements" (or "controversial new religious movements") and 2) to state clearly that since usage of the word "cult" itself is not accepted by the majority of scholars, "cult checklists" remain disputable at best, it is a theory not supported by everyone and hence 3) uncritically dedicating half of the article to the dubious viewpoints of anti-cult activists is excessive.

Restoring balance is difficult as article is quite lenghty already and enough efforts were already invested in it, so I assume some will be disappointed with my edits. But when I have sufficient time, I will rewrite it completely. "cult checklists" and similar stuff I will move to "anti-cult movement". Hope this solution will be accepted by others.

I agree with the above proposal.--≈ jossi ≈ 22:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. It is about time this is done. These checklists are an invention based on unscientific discourse. You have my support. --Zappaz 00:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please continue to vote. 2 votes so far, not enough.

I think that these checklists should be attributed to the anti-cult movement. Andries 18:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sure, you may move them yourself to the movement's article. ExitControl
The Wikipedia reader will notice the attempt here to disqualify the fundamental concept of "cult" in its accepted sense: an indoctrinated uncritical following of an abusive leader. No definition of "cult" will satisfy the cultists, who will identify themselves by their rationales here as you read. Wetman 00:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am a research scientist. My training has been primarily in nursing, pathology, and community mental health, and I wanted to weigh in on this issue.

I strongly disagree with replacing the term cult with “new religious movement,” at least for the purpose of this article. I think it is fair to note that the term cult can be applied pejoratively and inaccurately to “new religious movements.”

But the word “cult” in the modern sense is part of an attempt to get at and describe dysfunctional social groups, and also to describe the distortions in perception, cognition, emotion and volition experienced by many people who fall under the influence of those groups. We may as well replace the word “domestic violence” with “unsatisfying marriage.”

Another reason that “new religious movement” is an inadequate substitution is that cults do not necessarily have a religious basis or spiritual ideology. Cults can spontaneously arise in any social group where there is a strong central organizing principle—usually in the form of a person who teaches a method or ideology. Cults can arise in sports, entertainment, educational, business, medical, research, industrial, military settings. And of course cults can arise within political and religious groups.

For example there are “psychotherapy cults” that claim to base their work primarily on science, but when you look at the relationships between members and leaders, you can see the same pathologies of relationship that are found in religious cults.


The "anti-cult" movement can be broken down into several movements with different constituencies. First, there are mainstream religious leaders who do not like the idea of any other religious group leading the flock astray, or creating competition. Next, there are the atheists who think that any religious system is irrational, even harmful. Then there is a group of people who have personal experience with dysfunctional groups. Finally, there is a group of social scientists, social workers, psychotherapists and physicians who are concerned about the impact that dysfunctional social groups have on individuals, families and society.

There is some crossing over and exchange of ideas between the groups. For example, there are religious leaders who are genuinely concerned about the use of unfair means of persuasion by certain groups. But the constituencies of the different groups who have expressed concern about “cults,” are so diverse, that I don’t really think we can say that there is a single “anti-cult movement.”

The field of cult apologetics is also diverse. Some apologists are merely trying to defend one particular social group or another. Some apologists seem to deny that there is even such a thing as a “cult,” or brainwashing, or thought reform or coercive persuasion, or manipulative persuasion.

And of course, there are a few scientifically or medically trained persons who are genuinely concerned that we arrive at a proper understandings and definitions of cultism—both for the purpose of correct diagnosis, and also so that we don’t end up using the word “cult” to merely mean “a group I do not like.”


--71.35.124.168 20:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)-Noizy

CESNUR

David, I reverted your remark that CESNUR was funded by Scientology. I could not find any references for it and I strongly believe it to be incorrect. Andries 20:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To start you off, here is a Usenet post by Anton Hein (Apologetics Index) on the murkiness of the funding arrangements of CESNUR and of the academic study of NRMs in general. You are correct, in that it's not just Scientology paying them. But CESNUR are essentially paid public relations for the groups they write about. Compare Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and the tobacco industry. A reference supported by a study from CESNUR cannot reasonably be considered more than a press release with foot notes - David Gerard 00:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
David, we discussed this in another article's talk page (forgot which one) and you agreed with me that it was a mistake on your part to attribute CESNUR to Scientology. --Zappaz 00:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Wikipedia reader will detect the ad hominem argument here, which diverts attention from analytic statements by casting doubt on the funding or motivation of the speaker/writer. Wetman 00:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why the revert, Andries?

If you are reverting a substantial edit, you need to substantiate it here. The contributions by anon were pretty good. These deserve to be looked at and find a way o incorporate them into the text rather than performing and arbitrary and blanket revert. Thus, I am putting these back. --Zappaz 01:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, the edits contained serious mistakes. E.g. the anon=user:ExitControl just speculated about what Barrett wrote. Barrett did not write that using the word cult is unscientific. I advised ExitControl to start editing the draft at user:Andries/drafts/cult I do agree that all the edits should be reviewed one by one but takes a lot of time and I did not have that time. I will do my best. Andries 22:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have to admit that the anon=user:ExitControl made some good edits but one of the problems is that he suggests that only the anti-cult movement uses the word cult, which is untrue. The public and the media use the word too. More than the somewhat unusual term NRM.Andries 23:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the public, the media and even some European goverments use the word "cult" in that sense - "dangerous new religious movement". While "cult" in this sense is an offensive label, NRM is a scientific term. Therefore, it is inappropriate to continue use this word again and again as if it is a recognized scientific term. That is irrespectively of what Barrett wrote. Besides, listing fringe hypothesis ("checklists") is anti-cult POV and the corresponding passages must be moved to "anti-cult movement", as these are theories associated with that movements first and not academic community (only a small part of academics hold this extreme views). We need to say that this is how the media and public use that word, everything else is excessive --ExitControl
Well, at least it should be made clear in the article that the checklists are from anti-cult activists. Andries 17:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ExitControl, these checklists are not fringe. They are very popular. Andries 17:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sure, they are popular. That is because of widespread usage and power of internet. If we see the word in newspapers frequently and tens of dedicated anti-cult websites popup in Google, that does not mean the term is scientific and a majority of religious scholars agree on its meaning and usage. As to "cult-like behaviour" and other things, a majority of scholars do not hold these views. I am not saying we shouldn't use the word, but usage must be put in context.
ExitControl, please understand that the main why reason use the term NRM instead of cult, is not that the word cult in itself is unscholarly or unscientific, but to avoid the negative connotations of the word cult. And by the way, the scholarly series of books Nieuwe religieuze bewegingen in Nederland by the Vrije Universiteit has published one book (nr. 19) with the title Sekten (cults in English). I really have to think about your proposal. Andries 17:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Andries, I wish I could argue with you better, but for the lack of time let me add the following quote, which might give you an idea of what is accepted mainstream science and what are fringe theories:
The American Psychological Association (APA) in 1984 allowed Margaret Singer, the main proponent of anti-cult mind control theories, to create a working group called Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC).
In 1987, the final report of the DIMPAC committee was submitted to the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology of the APA. On May 11, 1987, the Board rejected the report and concluded that its kind of mind control theories, used in order to distinguish "cults" from religions, are not part of accepted psychological science (American Psychological Association 1987). Although the APA memorandum only dismissed the theories of brainwashing and mind control as presented in the DIMPAC report -- without prejudice to theories of influence and control other than those advocated by the DIMPAC committee - the results of the APA document were devastating for the anti-cult movement[6].
In fact, the DIMPAC theories rejected by APA largely corresponded to the anti-cult position as a whole. Starting from the Fishman case (1990), where a defendant accused of commercial fraud raised as a defense that he was not fully responsible since he was under the mind control of Scientology, American courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that these were not part of accepted mainline science (Anthony & Robbins 1992: 5-29). Margaret Singer, and her associate Richard Ofshe filed suits against the APA and the American Sociological Association (who had supported APA's 1987 statement) but they lost in 1993 and 1994.
As you see from the passage, neither the theories you rely on are mainline science, nor they are accepted by professional association (APA). The word cult is used by scholars (whilea part of them prefer replacing it with NRM term), but cult checklists, mind control et cetera are fringe theories, rebutted by mainstream scholars. Therefore I suggest that we not give an impression in the article that these is mainstream science and revise the text accordingly. And it all should be in anti-cult movement, I believe.
Thank you for the comprehensive response. These checklists are an invention of anti-cultists in order to create a fallacious taxonomy. Thank god that common sense has prevailed and that theories of people like Singer have been thoroughly dismissed. --Zappaz 00:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, yes, but SOME of the NRMs have abused their recruits. At times, even my beloved and Unfication Church has made errors -- all from NOT following Rev. Moon, to be sure! But I won't stand for a whitewash anyway. --Uncle Ed 01:00, 26 Sep 2004

(UTC)

Sure, facts are facts and if some NRM members committed crims, this surely contributed to their negative image and we may say that. Generalizations are inappropriate, however, wouldn't you agree? This is not am "op-ed" piece, we need to make a balanced and distilled article.
The Wikipedia reader will be able to check the history of the entry to judge what has been suppressed. Wetman 00:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To do: Can somebody include the definition by Roy Wallis?

Thanks in advance Andries 11:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Removal of further offensive labels

Removed the following from the 'see also' links: Doomsday cult, Cult homicide, Cult suicide, True-believer syndrome, Self-deception. Reasons: while the acceptability of usage of the word "cult" itself in the sense of a "dangerous new religion" is currently debated here, addition of further offensive labels to encourage creation of separate articles is contrary to NPOV policy. Language in use in anti-cult movement should be mentioned in separate article.

Also removed: Cognitive dissonance, Hate group, Religious conversion to new religious movements, Shepherding, Shunning. -- User:ExitControl

I strongly disagree with those removals. These are important to get a wider perspective. I have my doubts about the checklist but removing these wikilinks is very wrong, I think. Besides some of these terms, like true believer syndrome and self-deception do not come from the anti-cult movement but from skeptics. I will revert. Andries


Will revert back (remove the links again). I do not see what "wider prespective" you want to get by adding links to quotes from Adolph Hitler and suggestions to create new articles like "cult suicide". That's as far as 2/3 of your links that I removed are concerned. As to skeptics, please feel free to move their independent anti-cult theories to "anti-cult movement", as anti-cult theories are better represented there than here, be they independent or not. Then provide a single link to it here. Posting such links in this article is contrary to NPOV, as you therefore suggest that there's a connection between Nazis and "cults", mental deseases and cults etc.
The big lie is central to understanding some cults, I believe. Read e.g. this by the philosopher and sociologist and ex-cult member Robert Priddy. Andries 18:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Andries, I is not that I say you have wrong opinions, but this is related to a debate regarding cults, their dangers and so forth. That's why it should be put elsewhere, namely in "anti-cult movement". Or you could create some specific article where dangers of cults and all cult-related theories are touched (this makes sense, as technically not all anti-cult scholars are members of anti-cult movements).
ExitControl, e.g. the term cognitive dissonance is generally accepted in psychology. To attribute that to the anti-cult movement and hence remove it is very ignorant. Andries 18:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Andries, the term is of course accepted is psychology. It is contrary to NPOV to post it here, however (similarly to "psychosis" or "schizophrenia"). It is not used by mainstream psychologists in relation to NRM followers, but is is used quite frequently by anti-cult activists, so you may put it there.


That is a good call, ExitControl. Thanks. --Zappaz 18:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ExitControl,
1. it is only a see also list
2. I disagree that it is not used by mainstream scholars with regards to NRMs. I mean this is basic and non-pejorative. Cognitive dissonance is not an illness like pscyhosis or schizophrenia but a very common phenomenon. Please read and do some research!!
Andries 18:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Let me explain the reasons for removal in detail, so it not appear as if I am censoring you out of ignorance.
1. it is contrary to NPOV to associate "cults" with Hitler and so forth, even by way of 'see also' links.
2. The matter is not whether cognitive dissonance is a phenomena recognized by psychologists and whether it was mentioned by scholars of new religions. The matter is whether it is appropriate to provide this link here and it's not.
P.S. This Festinger's theory mentioned by some, i.e. the "cultists" refuse to believe facts about cults due to this "cognitive dissonance". You could put the link to new religious movements article and anti-cult movement as well, as anti-cult activists made numerous references to Festinger in their argumentation. But no need to put it here.
External links with comments like "What you should know about cult defenders" also cannot be considered neutral (to put it mildly). Bias is apparent, but I will not argue about that until I rewrite the article and invite ctiticism of the draft.
I continue to disagree with you ExitControl, you are only making it more difficult for the reader if you remove direct wikilinks pertinent to cults, like cognitive dissonance. And when I read a book with interviews of Nazis, it felt as if I could have been saying what the Nazi said. The big lie is about propaganda. It is the same phenomonon in cults. Andries 19:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't dispute that this might be relevant, but not here. I suggest "anti-cult movement" and "new religious movements". You could add these theories there, together with Hitler if you think they are relevant.

Of course this stuff is related, relevant and on-topic. Don't be ridiculous - David Gerard 21:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Hi, folks. Several users have asked me to come here and vote. I rarely participate in votes, and then only for the best of reasons, but I will offer these observations.

I added the two definitions and the two "checklists" to the article some time ago, though I did not use the word "checklist," which is believe may be misleading. Both checklists come from scholarly sources, references for which are included. I chose these two particular sources because they are widely quoted in professional and scholarly literature in both psychiatric and sociological disciplines. Indeed, in my survey of the research they appeared to be the most widely quoted of any of the several definitions and lists of characteristics in print. As such, I consider them to be the best possible factual articulation of the views of sociological and psychiatric scholars regarding the subject at hand; they are NPOV and they should stay.

Some groups that I would characterize as "cult apologists" seek to change the vocabulary and define away cults by instead using only the term "new religious movement" (or other substantially similar terms, "emerging religious movement" and so forth). I believe that we should document these views and present them in the article. However, these are not widely held views, and though we should describe them we need not adopt the terminology ourselves.

Firstly, the word cult exists for centuries in English vocabulary and only following the creation of anti-cult movement this word began to be used to describe a dangerous small religious group. So it is incorrect that "cult apologists" are seeking to "change the vocabulary", as you say. Besides, saying that the views of "cult apologists" are not widely help is nonsense.

The trouble with the NRM label is that not all cults (as described by the two sources in the article) are religous in nature, and not all NRMs are cults (again using the cult definition in the article). While there is overlap, it only confuses the issue to eschew use of the word cult and try to talk around something like "abusive NRMs and non-religous NRM-like movements that share their characteristics."

As with other controversial topics, we would do well to proceed as follows:

  1. Choose vocabulary based on the most widespread usage.
  2. State facts.
  3. State the views of each of the dissenting groups, with references.
  4. Try to place each group in context, in terms of relative size or influence.

My two cents. There are abusive cults out there, and most of them don't make headlines by killing people. There are also lots of noncult NRMs out there. There are edge groups that walk the line and exhibit some abusive behaviors, or that have some subgroups that exhibit abusive behaviors.

Again, what ExitControl says is to move all the pro-cult/anti-cult topic to other articles, and here just note the two meanings of the word - 1) hystorical and 2) recent, i.e. abusive new religion - ExitControl
ExitControl, I do not agree. Wikipedia is more than a dictionary. Andries 16:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Be well and play nice.

uc 21:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

well, may be ExitControl is right that the "anti-cult checklists" are now too prominently featured in the article. They certainly have to be attributed more clearly to anti-cult activists. I also have a checklist by Eileen Barker who is not an anti-cult activist here at home in a book. If one of the anti-cult checklist is moved to the anti-cult movement article and replaced by hers then that could help to balance the article . Andries 10:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
These checklsist are an invention of anti-culrt activists. If you want them, post them on the anti-cult page. Not here. And when you move them, provide references. --≈ jossi ≈ 18:00, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
I also think that references related to anti-cult wars are better placed there - ExitControl
The references are listed. Annotate the references if you must, but you don't get to just shift the criticism to another page with no reference here - David Gerard 20:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I suggest to 1) shift the criticism to another page but 2) provide reference to that page. - ExitControl

Checklists - care needed

Hadn't noticed the descussion before my edit. Added a *disclaimer* before the checklists. Hope it meets with general approval.

I disagree. The checklists must go. Either be deleted or moved to the Anti-cult_movement page. If there is no concensus, let us bring it to request for comments, and take a vote.--Zappaz 00:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what uc means by "scholarly" sources and "NPOV" info (I'm reading the talk page b4 the article, so maybe I'm going off half-cocked).
My experience with cult checklists and appeals to scientific authority makes me suspicious about people who have already made up their mind. They want to promote the view that cults in general are bad (or that NRMs I think are benign are destructive). They trot out these checklists, and sure enough, everything on their list seems to apply to the groups they want to slam.
There are two problems with this approach: (1) The checklists aren't scientific, i.e., the items often don't really apply to the NRMs any more than they do traditional "non-cult" religious groups (like Catholic nuns and monks). (2) Many or most of the items don't even apply to the NRMS -- the anti-cult crusaders merely assert that they do, while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
I hope that Wikipedia does not adopt the view that these 'cult checklists' and the conclusions that anti-cultists draw from them are objectively true. It would be better if Wikipedia took no official position on this controversial matter. --Uncle Ed 18:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ed, please be patient. I plan to replace one checklist with one by Eileen Barker. Some sociologists claim that Barker's list is based on empirical reserarch. Andries 18:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Ed that we shouldn't present checklists as objectively true - nor should we present his views or anyone else's as such. But I see no problem with including such lists if they are properly attributed. It would be nice to put two or three similar such checklists in a table, each listed with a source. Splitting this stuff up into two articles (one about cults and the other about anti-cult groups) is not the solution.--Eloquence*

I think the only way to keep these "How to Tell if Johnny Is a Cultist"-type checklists--and make the article keep some semblance of NPOV--is to present them in some sort of historical or scientific context. Just saying that scholar X says that groups who do A, B, and C are cults doesn't mean anything other than that scholar X thinks groups shouldn't do A, B, and C. It just doesn't say anything about why the scholar uses that particular definition of a cult. Maybe the scholar has some scientific justification, or maybe the scholar is simply making a judgment-call as to which groups are "normal" and which aren't. To be NPOV, what you'd have to say is something like this: "Scholar X did a study in which she defined a cult as a group who did A, B, and C; under that definition, she found that cult members had a 15% higher rate of suicide." COGDEN 00:02, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

CODGEN: These checklists are an invention on the anti-cult movement, and lack substantive scientific support. They need to go unless properly NPOVed as per your suggestions. --≈ jossi ≈ 02:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not how NPOV works. Whether you agree or disagree with the statements or whether you consider them scientific or pseudoscientific doesn't matter. What matters is that 1) credentialed experts in the field have created these lists, 2) they are relevant to the topic in question. Hence, they can be included with proper attribution, just as we include non-scientific statements by cult apologists.--Eloquence*

I think that an opinionated definition needs more than just attribution to be NPOV. It also requires a context. Citations to somebody's opinionated definition, are not like citations to historical or scientific fact or alleged-fact (and this includes pseudoscientific facts and alternate histories, which are treated the same as any other facts or alleged-facts). It doesn't matter that the definition is properly attributed, and whether the person cited has credentials--citing somebody's definition as a fact is not NPOV, unless you provide (or the audience understands) some context relating the definition to a set of facts or alleged-facts of science or history.
For example, in the idiot article, it's not enough to say something like "According to informal studies by Dr. X, an expert in political science, a person is an idiot if they (1) dislike George Bush, and (2) vote for Ralph Nader. See Journal of Punditry 6:44." This is probably relevant and definitely properly attributed, but certainly not NPOV, unless the article also somewhere mentions that Dr. X is a Democrat, and that he made the above statement while on the campaign trail for John Kerry. (That is, enough material for the audience to evaluate whether Dr. X's seemingly factual definition of an idiot is more fact-like or more definition-like).COGDEN 17:58, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Can somebody please enlighten me?

The checklist suggests that there can be nothing wrong with a groups if it does not fulfill the checklist. That is what I really believed. Well, my former group did not really did not seem to fulfill several cecklists but there is sooooo much wrong with it. [1] Andries 20:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"cult" checklists

I just read each of the 3 'cult' checklists in the article. I think they should be moved to the anti-cult or counter-cult articles. They are guidelines being promoted by these groups to 'identify cults', not objective criteria developed by credentialed sociologists, psychologists, lawyers or other credentialed professionals. They have no scientific basis.

Nearly all of the items apply equally to mainstream religions, such as the Roman Catholic Church. For example, a hierarchy whose top leader is not accountable to any earthly authority.

Moreover, there is no explanation for ANY of the items which shows how this makes the "cult" spurious or dangerous.

In other words, it's all simply opinion.

For these checklists to gain Wikipedia endorsement as "scientific", there ought to be examples of specific 'cults' showing (a) how one of more of these checklist items clearly and unambiguously applies to them, and how such conditions either caused or predicted harm to members or outsiders.

In fact, no reputable scientific body has endorsed these checklists. Lifton's theories are no longer in vogue. I'm not sure where the second list came from, and the third list looks a lot like Steve Hassan's (he has no scientific credentials, just a degree in counseling).

The article should at least mention that these checklists are in dispute and should not state or even hint that they are "scientific" unless accompanied by a statement from SOME scientific body.

My guess is that someone just took a look at a bunch of unpopular new religious movements, noted a handful of their common features, and created a list of bullet items. Then, putting the cart before the horse, they promoted these common characteristics of unpopularity into indicators of evil. I'm not sure if ANY scientist would call this scientific.

It's like saying, here's how you can identify an "evil anti-war protest":

  • Their members have long hair and strange clothing
  • They wear "love beads"
  • They often chant in public for long periods

I won't extend the bullet points, because I don't want to insult your intelligence: you get the idea. There is nothing sinister about hair or clothing style, necklaces, or chanting. Baseball fans chant!

I'd like to see the article say that:

  • organized campaigns against new religious movements branded them as "cults"
  • these campaigns claimed that large, well-known organizations (such as the Unification Church and Hare Krishna were harming (or likely to harm) their recruits or the general public
  • these campaigns stirred up public support for involuntary "deprogramming" of recruits
  • they justified these deprogrammings on the grounds that the recruits were victims of "mind control"
  • The APA eventually determined that the theory of mind control had no scientific basis
  • Widely publiciized claims that the larger, better known NRMs would commit mass suicide have yet to come true (for UC and HK in particular)

Sorry to ramble so much, but it's a confusing and upsetting subject. In sum, I think the article should talk about:

  • how some people define the word cult (i.e., a religion which they regard as spurious)
  • the distinction between groups which actually did become 'destructive' in a widely agreed sense, such as mass suicide (Jim Jones) or terrorism (Aum whatever).
  • how fears of cult suicide led to an armed attack on a group which (arguably) caused their deaths -- when their leader could have been arrested on any of his daily jogs outside the compound (David Koresh)
  • disputes between sociologists and anti-cult activists

As for the cult checklists, it would be interesting if anyone ever actually compared their bullet points with the actual (or supposed) characteristics of an NRMs or destructive cults.

I might be biased, although people who know me at Wikipedia generally trust me to be an honest and trustworthy reporter. And I have compared each of the checklist items to the Unification Church. Only a couple of items (one each from the first 2 lists) apply to the UC. And these aren't particularly sinister, because they don't combine with other items (for instance):

  • gradually introducing the teachings

This would be sinister, if the church had a large body of secret esoteric teachings. The UC's only 'secret' is the OPEN SECRET that members consider Rev. Moon to be the Messiah. Research has shown that 95% of members who join, eventually drop out. So the practice of gradually introducing the teachings has no significant effect on retention.

Well, elementary schools fit the criteria as well. User:ExitControl

Wikipedians keep asserting, "there ARE cults" and we have to describe them. Well, if you mean, there ARE groups whose teachings YOU consider false, then I agree. If you're a Democrat, you think Bush is "lying and people are dying". But Wikipedia can't create an article on political lies. Because it's not up to Wikipedia to call any politician a liar. Some Republicans think Kerry is a "liar" because he keeps changing his position on Iraq: for it, against it, for it, etc. (No, I'm not saying that Wikipedia should ASSERT that Kerry keeps changing his position. In his latest speech, at NYU, he said he has "one position" on Iraq. So Wikipedia would have to take the NEUTRAL position of saying that one side calls him a waverer, the other side calls him steadfast.

Similarly, one side says that GROUP X has false teachings, or exists only to benefit its leader(s), or "brainwashes" its followers. Fine. Just don't forget to say:

  • that most observers of religions note that nearly every group has SOMEONE who regards its teachings as false (Catholics call Buddhists false, Evangelical Christians call Muslims false, various denominations within Christianity call EVERY OTHER denomination false.
  • that the claims of "only existing to benefit its leaders" are (in some major and minor cases) disputed, both by current members and some outsiders
  • that the theory of "brainwashing" is, at best, in dispute -- and that at least one scientific body has officially REFUSED to support it

Okay, that was way too long. It would have been faster if I just made the necessary changes. But Andries and uc and others don't want me to; they say take it slow. So let's get started on the "evolution" of these articles.

Breathlessly,

Uncle Ed 14:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why dont you go ahead and re-write the article? I would kindly suggest that you create a new article at Cult/temp and propose it as an alternative. The currenmt article has soo many issues with it that it needs to be re-written from a tabula rassa .--≈ jossi ≈ 14:54, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, EdPoor, for your input. Yes, I also think that the best way would be to rewrite the article from scratch, incorporating the previous input (especially by Andries), but properly attributing everything. I am still concerned, however, about that there will be inevitable duplications of content with anti-cult movement article, so I previously suggested moving some parts there (anti-cult checklists specifically). What would you say? Anyway, I still don't have enough time to invest in this, so would you mind start writing a draft? We then can debate and improve it. Otherwise we will still be debating what's currently there without significant improvement for a long period of time... User:ExitControl
Ed and all, It is not just false beliefs. It is also about sexual abuse, betrayal of trust after encouraging unlimited devotion. It is about quackery. [2] It is about exploitation. [3] It is about murder warning graphic pictures with the culprits never convicted [4] and suicide [5]. It is about a cunning deception. It is about losing the community of believers whom I considered my family. It is about finding out that your God to whom you pray and fostered devotion everyday is a pedophile. Can you imagine that it took me years to recover from the shock? It is the story of my life called Sathya Sai Baba. You can see the documentary on 25 Sept 2004 on BBC World Service. [6]
I mean the unjustified persecution and stigmatization of members of minority religions such as you experienced is just one side of the story. The other side of the story is that normal people get sucked into NRMs that have corpses in the closet and get harmed Andries 18:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Andries, while I can understand and appreciate your personal suffering (and I honestly mean it) you cannot assume that just because someone slaps a label of "destructive cult" it makes it so. This is the problem with this article. Your affinity with other ex-follower's plight is also understandable. But please accept that your POV is getting in the way. Your afinity with the likes of Hassan and Rick Ross, is also understandable, but please do not accept what they say just because of your experience with SSB. Look at what they say dispassionately and you will see what I mean.
It is only by Ed, you, me and others working together we can get these articles in a shape that makes true the NPOV principle. It is a hard, uphill road, but one that is worth traversing IMO --≈ jossi ≈ 21:33, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Golly, Andries, I had no idea... Now that I know more about where you're coming from, I have even more respect for your sense of restraint and fairness. It must be hard adhering to the NPOV after such a shocking experience. --Uncle Ed 21:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Ed, and Jossi, thanks for your sympathy. Can we replace the disputed fact by a disputed neutrality? I would support the non-NPOV warning. The checklists are now clearly attributed to anti-cult activists and mentioned as disputed among scholars. If you think that the disputed fact label can not removed then could you please tell me what facts in the article you dispute. Thanks Andries 13:33, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

France

It appears from a remark made over on the Landmark Education article that the French government through its anti-cult law is either maintaining a list of cults or actively prosecuting certain cults. That would be a dynamite list to include in this article, since it implicates governmental discretion and sanction. And speaking of Landmark Education, that article is currently undergoing some back-and-forth POV shifting, if anyone here is interested in getting into that fray. --Gary D 18:47, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree to adding the list from the French government. That list was created based mainly on unverified "testimonies" of apostates and by anti-cult "specialists". There is also plenty of evidence that the French commission was pursuing a hidden agenda. I will try and dig information that supports this.
If you insist in adding that list, then we will need to create a new page to present the controversy raised by the Ftench commission.
This is the info
This is an excerpt from an address on the anti-cult Piccard law, by Stuart A Wright (highlights mine):
Following the second wave of suicides by Solar Temple members in 1995, the French security division of the police (Renseignements generaux or R.G.) created a list of suspect religious organizations, without reference to any sociological definition or legal standard. The list was seized upon by the French National Assembly which adopted a resolution to create a commission of inquiry "assigned to study the cult phenomenon." At the end of its work, which was carried out in strict secrecy, the commission, chaired by representative Alain Gest, published a report entitled "Sects in France." The commission defined a set of "danger criteria" that enabled it to classify religious organizations posing a threat (Hervieu-Leger, 2001:249). It identified "172 groups and the Jehovah's Witnesses," and took credit for compiling the list, which was actually developed by the R.G. Lobbying by militant activists representing two anticult organizations, the Association for the Defense of the Family and the Individual (ADFI) and the Center Against Mental Manipulation (CCMM or Center contre les manipulations mentales) led the government to put into place a significant arsenal of repressive measures against the blacklisted groups (Garay, 1999:7)
Fulltext at http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/wright.htm
--≈ jossi ≈ 19:40, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily insisting on including the list, but more to the point I'm certainly not suggesting the list be necessarily treated approvingly by the article or used as a benchmark for determining actual cult status. I mean, I looked at the cult list and it includes the Mormons and the Christian Scientists. Most people reading the Christian Science Monitor don't consider themselves to be reading a cult rag. The dissonance grows especially piquant with respect to the portion of the article's brief mention of the French law that contains a vague refernce to "criminal cults." Indeed, the whole notion of government swimming in these waters sets off my American liberality alarm. By the same token, that notion of government getting into a religious fray and declaring, "these ones are cults, we've decided, and here are legal measures we're imposing to meet them" is huge in significance to the topic. Actually, the text block you give above with a little NPOVing would be a nice addition. --Gary D 21:07, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
The government never officially declared certain groups as cults. David.Monniaux 07:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Added some text about France and Belgium anti-cult legislation.
The problem with this atricle that it is a mess. Mixing destructive cult stuff, with NRMs with anti-cultists checklists. A big mishmash with no head or tail, just an anti-cult POV. It needs re-witing IMHO. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:37, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think that there is severe confusion about the attitude of the French government with respect to sects. I'll first given the legal facts, which many foreign commentators seem to ignore.

  • A list of alleged cults was given as part of a 1995 report by a parliamentary commission, which was formed following a series of frightening mass crimes involving "cults" in France and abroad. This report is neither law nor regulation, and not the official position of the French government. It's therefore highly misleading to claim this list forms part of the French government's policy.
  • In 2001, a law was voted. This law makes it possible to prosecute a moral persona (i.e. a corporation or association, as opposed to a physical persona, i.e. a human person) for certain crimes in defined circumstances, as well as it makes it possible for a court to dissolve this persona if it seeks certain criminal goals. Crimes affected by this law include, for instance, crimes against people (murder, rape...) as well as practicing medicine illegally (i.e. without a doctorate in medicine etc...).

An additional note: the French government is, by law, prohibited from granting recognition to any religion; therefore the claims from some movements that they are discriminated against because the government does not wish to recognize them as a religion are just misguided or intentionally misleading.

Note that no law nor any authoritative government text declares that the Jehovak Witnesses and Christian Science are sects or that they should be fought or prosecuted.

The claim that religious groups are not given recourse to the law to get out of the list is also exceedingly misleading. This list is not standing legislation, but a part of a specific report published on a certain date. It does not make sense legally to ask to get erased from a dated publication (unless there is some kind of censorship and rewriting of history).

Now, you seem to disagree with the commission's classifying Christian Science as a sect. I think that one of the criteria was the religious organization's insistence on abandoning scientific medicine and using faith healing.

David.Monniaux 11:30, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

David is right about Christian Science. See http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/09/01/fraser/index.html
Andries 12:25, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'll first given the legal facts, which many foreign commentators seem to ignore.. What do you mean by foreign? This is the problem that pervades France today... Your explanation on the legal aspects is not enough to cover the fact that French and Belgium legislation against freedom of beliefs is a sad and appalling reality.--≈ jossi ≈ 16:01, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
By "foreign" in the context of France, I mean the obvious: people from outside France who comment on length on alleged French legal items while ignoring basic facts, including the difference between a parliamentary report and legislation.
The rest of your answer is mere unsubstantiated accusation. You seem to know next to nothing about French reality, except what is written about it in web sites with an agenda. David.Monniaux 16:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So, are saying that there is no anti-sect legislation in France? --≈ jossi ≈ 16:58, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
You're confusing the issues. There is legislation aimed at curtailing criminal activity by organized criminal groups posturing as religious groups. This legislation has no notion of "accepted" or "rejected" religious dogmas (which would be unconstitutional), nor does it list any particular group. David.Monniaux 17:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The proof is in the pudding as they say. France has shown an irrational abhorrence to freedom of beliefs that is expressed in their "commissions", and their laws, regardless of what you say. Any one can see that. Ask any person that follows a religion that is not in the mainstream in France. Ask them if they feel safe and protected by their goverment. You will be surprised. IMO, France's legislation is anachronistic. --≈ jossi ≈ 22:19, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Again, I think you're mixing things up. First, let me say that attributing feelings like "abhorrence" to a large group of people such as a country is dubious. It is indeed true that most people distrust groups that they perceive as manipulating their followers into donating their wealth to a "guru", are secretive, educate their children away from other children, etc... and this is reflected at the political level.
However, you should note that such distrust and possible hostility is not geared towards religious beliefs, but again worldly activities. Most people would feel suspicious about the Opus Dei, even though it's a Roman Catholic group. Similarly, you should note that the French government does not grant recognition to any religion or religious dogma; contrary to, if I may say, the US government, which mandates the use of monotheist affirmations like "under God" or "In God we trust".
You're now challenging me to see what happens to followers of non-mainstream religions. I don't know exactly what's "mainstream" or not – I suppose that mainstream religious beliefs in France would include atheism and Roman Catholicism, then Islam, Judaism and "usual" Protestantism. However, down the block where I live there is a large 7-day Adventist Church, certainly a tiny minority religion. It's prosperous and the faithful really don't sound like they're being persecuted. Thus, your "any person" claim is clearly overblown...
Finally, we're trying to write an encyclopedia here. On controversial issues, we should try to stick to checkable facts. French legislation can be easily verified and checked online. Court actions are reported in the press, lawsuits are public, and therefore one can check with some objectivity how a certain law is enforced. On the other hand, arguments such as "ask any person..." have high potential for sampling bias, personal opinions and the pushing of bias. David.Monniaux 06:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree with you. Sorry for my somewhat un-encyclopedic stance, but having being harassed because of my beliefs and seeing friends of mine in France being harassed as well, makes me a bit edgy. I will stick to the facts and provide references to the POV I was expressing. --≈ jossi ≈ 15:45, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

David: I am interested to know your POV on the MIVILUDES and your comments on this paper by Regis Dericquebourg http://www.cesnur.org/2003/vil2003_dericquebourg.htm. Thanks. --≈ jossi ≈ 20:46, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

This article is laughable for its bias.
"The attempts to eliminate any form of non-conformist religiosity, whether it was denied or not, were criticised by international human rights organisations, religious freedom defence associations, foreign academics and politicians." <-- clearly a broad exaggeration
There is, again, no definition of "conformant" or "official" religiosity in France; as I said before, the government is prohibited by law to grant or withdraw recognition to religious, and never ever makes a statement regarding religious beliefs (note the contrast with the US government, which mandates the use of monotheist mottos).
I think that the article seeks to exploit the anti-"Socialist" bias in the American society by deliberately discussing the Jospin government as made of communists, socialists and Greens, making it appear extremist, while calling the Raffarin government "moderate right". This political bias is shown by this ridiculous poll:
In the question "If so, why?," we had asked to choose two of the following reasons maximum:
1) because the right does not have an anti-sect ideology;
2) because the right is more tolerant than the left;
3) because the right does not have an anti-religious ideology;
4) because the right will deal with more important issues;
5) because the right will want to differentiate themselves from the left;
6) because the right is less linked to freemasonry lodges.
This is quite laughable.
When I browse the organigram of the Ministry of the Interior, I see no "Office for Religious Affairs". There is probably still some kind of office somewhere in the ministry bureaucracy charged with various duties with respect to Alsace-Moselle and legal recognitions of religious groups, but it seems extremely tiny. "It also acts as the religious police." is sheer paranoia. There is no religious police in France (unlike in Iran, Saudi Arabia etc...). What is meant by this sentence, I cannot fathom.
In short, I see lots of innuendo, unsubstantiated allegations, factual errors, and possible political manipulation. David.Monniaux 10:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following:

       On the other hand, French anti-cultist organizations such as the CCMM (Center Against Mind Control), the European federation of anti-cult movements FECRIS and the French governmental Mission to Fight Cults (MILS, headed by Alain Vivien) have assisted the Chinese government in what some consider is state-persecution of religious minorities in China.[7]

Alain Vivien attended a colloquium on the topic of cults in China. [8] This does not imply any assistance of the French government or the MILS to the Chinese government, nor does Alain Vivien express the official position of the French government.

I shall repeat myself: Mr Vivien was not a government minister, or a spokesman for any part of the executive branch. He was not even a government employee. Mr Vivien was the head of an advisory government commission which neither writes laws nor issues regulations, but merely writes reports.

The following could be more accurate: "Mr Alain Vivien, head of the French Interministerial Mission to Fight Cults (MILS), now disbanded, attended a colloquium organized by the Chinese government on the topic of cults."

Note that I provided some candidate for a rephrased text on the talk page, for you to read and comment.
I removed the text because it was laced with unsubstantiated inferences. You stated that a French governmental entity was assisting the Chinese government in a state persecution of religious minorities. This is a grave accusation, and it certainly needs to be backed with evidence. So far, the only evidence shown is attendance in a colloquium.
I'll give you an example: scientists from many countries attend scientific colloquia organized by US government agencies operating under the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense. Does this mean that the said scientists assist the US government in its nuclear program or military policies? Does this mean that they support the said policies? If those scientists work for public institutions, does this mean their government supports the US government's military policy?
It's not so much that I don't think that the facts that CESNUR reports are false (they may or may not be), it is that they draw many unwarranted inferences from them. We are here dealing with government commissions that operate in the open, as opposed to security or intelligence agencies. Certainly, if MILS was involved in actual assistance to the Chinese government, there would be more evidence than mere assistance in a meeting. David.Monniaux 17:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please stop quoting CESNUR texts as if they were a fair, balanced and informational source. CESNUR is a pressure group fighting for certain interests. Taking information from CESNUR is akin to quoting Michael Moore on American politics – it's surely inflammatory, it may have a basis of truth, but it's certainly not neutral nor precise nor unbiased. David.Monniaux 09:52, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, are there any substantial verifiable facts than makes you believe that CESNUR is a "pressure group" fighting for "certain" interests? If so, please kindly share them with us. As to France's unadvertized cooperation with China in prosecution of Falung Gong, you may read this in newspapers, so please do not deny the obvious (by cooperation I mean arresting Falung Gong followers during visits of Chinese delegation by police, then releasing without any charges). I does not matter if MILF officially cooperates or police unoficially does it. CESNUR is simply reprinting these newspaper publications, which you can read yourself if interested. I don't exactly understand your argumentation, especially in view of the fact than the many groups that experience such persecution did not commit any crimes worth repeating in France. We judge by deeds, not declarations. See Human Rights Watch for reference. User:ExitControl
You are totally mixing up the issues. On several occasions, and it was a subject of controversy in France, the French government implemented extra "security measures" when top-level Chinese delegations wre coming. Those security measures, in particular, prevented protesters - including pro-Tibet and pro-Falung Gong protesters - from going near the course of movement of the Chinese delegation. I may add that similar measures were also implemented when president George W. Bush came to France, as well as for the G8 summit. As a consequence, protesters were arrested. As it often happens in such circumstances (and the same happens with pro-Falung Gong protesters, Anarchists, Communists or whatever protesters), most protesters could only be charged with minor offenses (such as trespassing, resisting arrest...) and the prosecution says that they won't prosecute the case after all (if only because the "trouble" has ceased).
Those extra security measures were highly controversial. Many people, including conservatives normally backing Chirac's policies, argued that it was too much in favor of the dictatorial government of China. Some argued that it was a bit too much to win a market share in China. This was quite evident in the French press.
However, it is quite excessive and misguided that it means that France assists China in the prosecution of Falung Gong. When France arrests anti-George W. Bush protesters that wanted to disrupt his visit, does it mean that France assists George W. Bush in repression against anarchists or in the prosecution of the war in Iraq? Certainly, there would be an absurdity there.
Of course, neither MILS (which no longer exist) nor MIVILUDE give orders to the police. Suggesting this totally ignores the way the French government works. Again, if I can repeat myself, MILS and MIVILUDE do not have any kind of authority whatsoever. They just publish reports, basically.
As to the many press articles discussion the alleged collaboration, I would prefer that you stick to informative articles, where journalists know the facts, and not refer to op-ed pieces or other commentaries as authoritative sources.
As for my argumentation, it's actually quite simple: there are facts, and there are the interpretations and inferences you draw from them. All the articles I saw in Cesnur seemed very high in oriented commentary, and very lacking in actual fair and balanced descriptions of events. This strikes me as op-ed, not as objective reporting.
For instance, the facts reported in an article may actually be true, but the inferences drawn from them totally bogus. As explained above, nobody intellectually honest can conclude that if France arrests Falung Gong protesters during a Chinese official visit, it means it supports repression against Falung Gong. A much simpler explanation is that the French government did not want any kind of disruption during a visit where major economic issues were discussed. Never attribute to mischeviousness and hidden dealings what can be attributed to mere greed and expediency. David.Monniaux 20:55, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The fact that your POV is that CESNUR is not a trustworthy source, does not give you the right to remove the text. That is unccpetable behavior. You coud have tried and improved upon the text I entered. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:47, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, do not quote CESNUR where it refers to outside source, quote the originals. User:ExitControl
To David and others, CESNUR is a network of scholars and the quality of its publications depends very much on the authors. I have read a lot of publications by CESNUR and it is not, in contrast to popular belief, an organization that defends cults or NRMs. It is however less critical than the anti-cult movement and they believe that some anti-cult activists exaggerate. Andries 17:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mmmh. I stand corrected. It's just that all the publications I've ever seen from this group seemed highly opinionated and un-scholarly. I've done my share of scholarly publications and editing of scholarly publications (though not in the social sciences), I know people working in the social sciences, and I can tell you that one thing that is valued in scholarly publishing is precision. Especially, the use of hyperbole, exaggerated comparisons and inflammatory terms is banned.
Seriously, a text that talks of "religious police" with respect to an office in a French government ministry, without giving any kind of reason or definition of what is meant, is not a serious scholarly piece. It's more probably an opinion piece that seeks to use unfavorable comparisons and suggestions in order to push a certain opinion.
This text and others I've seen would not belong on a serious scholarly site. I don't know whether there are peer reviewing mechanisms in place at CESNUR, but in any case, the site seems more like an opinion soap box than a serious scholarly publication. David.Monniaux 18:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
David, if a scholar decides to write a popular article or (god forbid) a critical piece (with occasional use of hyperbols), that does not make him less scholarly or expert in his area, IMO.
As I said, this makes the article un-scholarly. This is, to summarize, one difference between an encyclopedia article (or a scholarly "paper") and an op-ed piece. In the former, you have to make your base yourself on facts and be objective (even if it leads to dull writing). In the latter, it is expected that objectivity has been sacrificed in favor of punchiness.
It is possible for a scholar to write both editorial and scholarly paper. However, when reading editorial papers, even written by an established scholar, we must be aware that the paper is there to advance an opinion or a cause, not give a fair and balanced view, and may actually be lacking in the way of argumentation.
Furthermore, scholarly writing works through impartial peer reviewing in a wide field, i.e. people of various opinions and schools of thought are allowed to criticize the paper. CESNUR does not fit this picture. David.Monniaux 20:58, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think part of the problem with CESNUR is that polemical articles and scholarly research works are mixed on their site. Anyway, it is clear enough that CESNUR is not an organization, it's an association of independent scholars. So we could sometimes erroneously attribute an opinion of a scholar to some unified CESNUR position (while in fact it is not so) or even mix newspaper articles that CESNUR website reprints with scholarly works. As with everything else, I pretty much agree with your opinion, but please be aware that CESNUR is doing a favor by publishing the works on internet (because not many of us will go an extra mile to visit libraries).ExitControl

I object to your last edit on the France section. It seems to me to be just your opinion on the subject. --Zappaz 13:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Definition of cult

I think we need to make a subtle but crucial distinction between:

  • a religious group which some people think is spurious; and,
  • a religious group which is "really and truly bad"

It was the issue of how we Wikipedians should write about the checklists that made me think of this: what are the checklists being used for?

  • to determine whether some people think the group is spurious? or,
  • to determine whether the group is really and truly bad?

It looks like each of the three checklists was designed and intended for the latter purpose. The promoters of these checklists urge people to compare a religious group's characteristics with the bullet points, and to conclude that the group is "a cult" if it matches up with enough points.

So it's not a case of:

  • Here are characteristics of religious groups which a lot of people dislike; but,
  • Here are characteristics which, if group X has too many of them, mean IN OUR OPINION that X is fake and dangerous!

From that advocate's point of view (POV), any group with enough of these characteristics is NECESSARILY SPURIOUS.

I think we're likely to need a separate article (at least for temporary development purposes) for cult checklists.

It would be interesting to explore also WHY these various advocates believe that the posthesesssion of characteristics is likely to make a group spurious. And also whether they believe the checklists can or must not apply to mainstream religions like Roman Catholic Church. (And if not, why not?) --Uncle Ed 23:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit that anti-cult activists rarely apply these checklists to mainstream religion. May be it is because minority religions are easy targets. Andries 23:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, it's because they're something to apply when there's clearly pathological behaviour occurring. Like the DSM-IV - you could fit mentally healthy people to its criteria, but that's a misapplication, because for a lot of the stuff in it, if it isn't a problem then it isn't a problem - David Gerard 17:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, psychiatry is an interesting science and profession. If there is clearly pathological things gong on, there is criminal police to deal with it. Criminal police, as you know, does not try to prevent crime by profiling the potential criminals using "science" of this sort and it acts when the crimes are already committed or there is sufficient signs that they might be committed soon (as when police learns someone has stockpiled an arsenal of illegal arms). Anti-cult activists do not adgere to these common principles.

Barker's list of for potentially dangerous situations

From Eileen Barker 1992:137. I translated the list back from Dutch to English. It is claimed that this list is based on empirical research but personally I have my doubts about it because this seems very difficult to research empirically to me. I need to see the original research that I do not have here.

  1. A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically or socially
  2. Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality.
  3. Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others.
  4. Making sharp distinctions between us and them. divine and satanic, good and evil etc. that are not open for discussion.
  5. Leader who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to their followers.
  6. Leader and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain goal.

I propose replacing one "anti-cult checklist" by this list. Andries 23:52, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To my knowledge, while Barker's position is much less radical, it does not make her checklist a mainstream science. User:ExitControl


The deletions by Ed Poor: picture and extreme examples

  • Ed, do you have an alternative for the picture of Jim Jones? I can not think of any other picture than the old one that would offend nobody. I agree that it is not very fair that relatively harmless groups are associated with Jim Jones but the the public and the media see Jim Jones as the example of a cult. The expression destructive cult is not very usual, whether you or I like it or not. Andries 17:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I oppose to the deletions of the extreme historical examples. Without them the article becomes too abstract. The article explicitly mentioned that these examples are rare and extreme. Another reason why I think that the examples should be restored is that the difference between cult and destructive cult is vague/gray i.e. my former group Sathya Sai Baba exploits (some of) its members but it is certainly not as destructive and dangerous as the People's Temple. Andries 17:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, it's like in propaganda pamphlet. Jim Jones is not subject of this article. If we are to keep him, then we need to add less odious figures to add balance, would you agree? Otherwise it inadvertedly equates Sathya Sai Baba (or Maharishi) with Jim Jones, which is appropriate in polemics (pamphlets etc), but not very appropriate in articles, I believe. - ExitControl

Other reply to Ed Poor

  • I think the checklists are important for potential new members and their family to predict the chance of getting harmed. Not as an indication of evil. I mean, how on earth do you know what is going to happen with the group you are in? That is why these checklists can be helpful. Andries 17:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, Andries, checklist may be effective in preventing potential recruits to join the ugly cults, but they are not very effective in maintaining a scientific and unbiased discourse. We need to take into account that. - ExitControl


This may be wishful thinking from your part, Andries. These checklists are misleading as they are presented as "tools" to assess if a cult is destructive or not and these tools lack scientific substance. This is at the core of this controversy. You need to find a way to NPOV what these checklist are and who created them. The catch-all approach of these checklist are a liability. --Zappaz 22:44, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I actually think you're both expressing a valid concern here. Andries wants the public to know before getting too deeply involved in a NRM if it's going to be a bad experience; Zappaz, I guess, wants to make sure we don't endorse the tools prematurely. --Uncle Ed 13:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Frankly, upon consideration I would like to vote in favour of lists, but with proper attribution. I think we need to say who invented the lists, whether they are mainstream science (they're not), who uses and refers to them and what are the concerns related to them. ExitControl

Ed, Lifton's checklist is called thought reform, not brainwashing

I borrowed the book from the university libray but have not yet read it. I only glanced at the relevant chapter (nr. 22) Andries 18:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries,

This page is 55 kilobytes long, and I'm falling behind in my reading. In the interests of wiki-harmony, please just go ahead and revert any change I've made that you disagree with. Because I have come to trust you, I'm sure that you will have good reasons for any such change.

For example, Thought Reforem checklist of Lifton. Or even call it "Lifton's checklist". (I can get pretty sloppy when I rely on my memory.) --Uncle Ed 18:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)