Talk:Cult apologist/Archive 1

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.

Contents

Citation or attribution needed

We need a citation for the text below. Thanks. --Zappaz 23:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--- Detractors of these scholars allege that cult apologists tend to:

  • claim that most cults are misunderstood - but legitimate - minority "religions";
  • claim that these movements only seem weird because people don't know enough about them;
  • claim that anticult organizations and individuals misrepresent the beliefs and practices of such movements;
  • claim that negative information about cults comes mostly from disgruntled former members with an ax to grind;
  • challenge the reliability of apostates' testimony; (See: Apostasy and new religious movements.)
  • claim that anticult organizations are 'anti religious freedom.' [4] (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html)
  • minimize the harm that cults inflict on their members

---

I'm a bit disappointed that we couldn't agree on Eileen Barker's 5 categories of cult-watching groups. Was it Barker who pointed out that ACM's brand neutral researchers such as herself as "cult apologists" primarily because they can't accept the idea that objective research would disagree with the anti-cult POV.

  • You must be brainwashed, yourselves.
  • They're paying you off, right?
  • You harbor a concealed bias.

I think we need to look a bit more into this labeling thing. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:22, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Blacklist

Please provides sources for inclusion. Thanks. --Zappaz 22:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

==Scholars labelled as apologists==

The following is a list of scholars who have been characterized as "cult apologists".

External link

This link [1] is to an webpage titled "Cult Apologism" that contains material germane to this article. -Willmcw 15:46, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and totally innapropriate and irrelevant to this article. The fact that an anonymous web page calls another web page "apologist" is not worthy of inclusion. This is just another attempt to hijack Wikipedia to promote intolerance.≈ jossi ≈ 17:40, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
It discusses the phenomenon of "Cult apologism". The reference to Wikipedia seems minor. We routinely use unsigned webpages as references. However, it is not a reference - it is a "further info" link. I don't see a problem with it. -Willmcw 17:46, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
I added much better links than that page written by an unknown person with a bad case of follie de grandeur. Andries just wants to promote his "nice" friends, and not add value. It took me only 5 minutes at Google to find proper links to make the article better. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
The main reason I added the website because I think that readers want to know whether the information in this encyclopedia is unreliable. Andries 18:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
readers don't give a hoot about what you think. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:16, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
And you know very well whey the authors of these websites prefer to remain anonymous. That is because of harassment by current follower or Rawat. Andries 18:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and pigs fly too. Your gullibility has no end, Andries.≈ jossi ≈ 18:16, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Harassment of ex-premies should not suprize people who promote the view that ex-premies form a hate group. Andries 22:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
My interpretation of the speech acts, actions and demeanor of some of the people that call themselves ex-premies is that they behave like one. If they feel harassed by my assesment, so be it. I am entitled to my opinion, as they are entitled to theirs. ≈ jossi ≈ 22:19, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar reverts

Please explain why are you deleting factual information. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:33, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Why am I deleting one side's POV interpretation of an external link, which any visitor can visit for themselves and make up their own mind what the contents are? The question is, why are you afraid to let people go to the site themselves and make up their own minds? But I think we both already know the answer, really... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Why the animosity? This is not a one side's POV, as it is an accurate description of the external link, and there is no policy against qualifying a link. Restored. ≈ jossi ≈ 02:26, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
What is the fuss all about? Some text qualifying an external link? Don't see a problem if it is an appropriate description, and it is. --Zappaz 07:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Zappaz and Jossi. Andries 07:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather see the link included with a qualification than see it omitted entirely. The current description is perhaps a bit tendentious, but it's not grossly inaccurate either. Perhaps we could shorten it a bit. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Replace the description that's there with something that's shorter and NPOVed? I'm okay with that. I think we could definitely come up with something less blatantly biased if we cut out the spin phrases that make the current description less NPOV than no description. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
The one that is obviously "blatantly biased", is obviously you. Can you tell me what is biased about a statement of fact? "essay purportedly written by critical ex-followers (website is anonymous) claiming that Prem Rawat's article on Wikipedia is an example of cult apologism."
  • It is purpotedly written by ex-followers
  • It is anonymous
  • They claim that th article in WP is an example of cult aplogism.
All these are FACTS.
Other facts in a more POV description would have been: "A blatantly biased essay, written with the only purpose of harassing Prem Rawat and his students, by claiming that an article in Wikipedia that was edited by numerous editors over an extended peridod of time and was agreed by consensus to be representative of a Neutral point of view, is an example of cult apologism". ≈ jossi ≈ 14:49, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 :) --Zappaz 15:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not surprised that by putting your mind to it, you can push POV even harder than it's already being pushed. For you, it's a piece of cake! What would really surprise me, though, is if you were actually able to resist the temptation to coat everything in a thick layer of spin phrases. Tell me, is there a purpose to saying the essay was "purportedly" written by ex-followers of Prem Rawat, when that is exactly what the writers claim them to be and when you clearly believe them to be so and when no one, apparently, has actually disputed that they are ex-followers? Or is it just a reflex at this point to insert "purportedly", "allegedly", "supposedly" in any sentence involving such 'apostates'? =) Your slip is showing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
You could have proposed to delete "purported". The only reason I wrote purported is because it is anonymous so we don't really know who wrote it. I have removed the "P" word.. In regard to you acussations about "coating" and "spin", I would suggest you take a hard look at your own edits. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:05, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I always do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Sure, and you can find pigs at about 3,000 ft. high  :) ≈ jossi ≈ 00:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
And you can find Prem Rawat followers with integrity. :) (Integrity is the thing you have when you don't create an article on the rationale "Opposing views can be added here" and then argue about how it should be deleted because it's such a POV fork.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Do you keep little black book with little snippets of other editors' mistakes so that you can quote from them when needed in an argumentum ad hominem? Nifty ... :) ≈ jossi ≈ 01:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Would you two please cut it out? -Willmcw 01:28, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Groups acussed of apologism

We need at least one citation and attribution for these groups being characterized as "apologists" (who calls them that is important information. Without such cite, we are stating a POV as a fact. As it stands now it is not NPOV.


--ZappaZ 03:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Latest edits

Moved all counterposition-statements to section counterposition.

Added para at the beginning about who's mainly using the term.

Added an weblink to an article.

Formatted groups again

Removed not-attributed pejorative labeling which is partly incorrect (who said Hausherr is a former Scientologist?). ZappaZ, attributing means saying who said something - when the person has an article in Wikipedia and the reference text is given, there is no need to label them (such labels would have to be attributed again and that goes a bit too far). We discussed that before. --Irmgard 22:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that in an article in which the term "cult apologist" is discusses, you say that giving context about who are the people making these accusations against scholars of new religions is a peyorative label. I would ask Irmgard to be as aware of his/her biases as he/she has asked of me. Thanks. --ZappaZ 00:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
If I would call Melton or Hadden in any article a "cult apologist", you would scream for "attribution" (correctly). If you use "anti-cult activist" you have to attribute this as well, it is not a neutral description - or leave it (imagine, I would add "cult apologist" to every mention of Introvigne or Hadden). And, again, if a person has an article in Wikipedia where all the activities and pro and cons are detailed (e.g. Rick Ross), it is not necessary to label this person in other articles. If Hein is counter-cult or cult watching is according to Barker's definition not very clear.
Regarding bias: this article describes cult activist - and I have added the 2nd para where I say that it is mainly used by opponents to cults and considered pejorative, to make this clear. The question here is not bias but labeling persons and not attributing it.
Also if someone is listed in references it makes the article unnecessary long to write that he is author of several articles on cults - such info is just redundant. Expect some intelligence from the readers as well... if you don't, the articles get read only by silly people, because intelligent people are bored by them. --Irmgard 09:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Merging the two definitions

I think the merging of two definitions by Jossi, as voiced by Andries and Fossa is quite good. Thanks I apologize for giving a revert without discussion. Andries 23:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Better than either prior version, sure. Though the "investigate them in a social and scientific manner" somewhat infers that others do not investigate them in a scientific matter, which would be a) wrong and b) biased. Also, what means "investigating in a social manner" exactly? That should be clarified.
Just as a note: the expression cult apologist is used, e.g. on the first page of Robbins' and Zablocki's Introduction to "Misunderstanding Cults" and also later on in the book all of whose contributors are scholars. --Irmgard 15:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
social-scientific is an improvement, but still needs improvement: Beit-Hallahmi, Zablock and Kent, e.g., are also social scientists, but do not "qualify" as cult apoligists. Maybe some wording with "religious studies" would fit better. --Irmgard 19:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what I wanted to remark too. The label of cult apologist is not applied to all social scientists, but only to social scientists perceived as unrealistically uncritical. Andries 19:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Kent, BH, Krebs, and Zablocki are outsiders in the academic discourse on NRM. It's clear that they are not called names by the ACM. and it's also clear that they try to use social-scientific methods. Fact is that they are not called cult apologists because of their methods, but because of their opinion. The overwhelming majority of scholars (Bainbridge, Shupe, Bromley, Introvigne, Melton, Robbins, Beckford, Barker, Snow, Rochford, Benford, Stark, Finke, Iannacone, Williams, $younameit) disagree with their views, even though most of them them have Christian leanings.--Fossa 00:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
perceived as unrealistically uncritical. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Fossa, If you are right in what you say then the following sentence that you wrote (!) is factually inaccurate "The term cult apologist is used for scholars, which are not hostile towards cults, but investigate them in a social-scientific manner." Andries 00:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it nowhere says that they are hostile towards all scholars of NRM; they are only hostile towards the large majority of NRM scholars, who do not support their opinions.--Fossa 18:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Normally when we write a definition we make sure it describes exactly the phenomenon that it is supposed to describe. This definition encompasses more people than just "cult apologists". Andries 09:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A general description of the word apologist does not belong here

I disagree with the re-inserting by user:Tilman of the general explanation of the word apologist. General articles should treat general subjects. Specific ones, such as this one should treat specifics. The word [[Apologist] can be linked to and that should suffice. Andries 20:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is innapropriate to explain what the words apologist means? Most people don';t know what the terms means, so it is very appropriate to explain the term. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, you may be right on second thoughts. Andries 05:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The point here is that the original maening of "apologist" has little, if anything, to do, with the term "cult apologist". Yes, true, it is a pun on the term "apologist", but it is misleasding to treat it, as if it would be a straightforward derivative of the term.--Fossa 00:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Where is your definition of "cult apologist" from? AndroidCat 04:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

critics and opponents

The term is used among others by Tilman Hausherr who is both described as a critic and an opponent with reputable source. user:Fossa was actively engaged in this discussion about Tilman Hausherr but here he reverts without explanation to a version removing the word critic. I do not understand this and I will revert back unless user:Fossa give a good reason for his revert. Andries 10:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources needed

As per WP:V we need reliable sources that describe these people as "cult apologists". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • See referenced Douglas E. Cowan statement, further below in article. Smeelgova 18:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
We need at least one source per person, and the acussation needs to be attributed to that critic, and not stated as fact. See WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Smeelgova, you keep asking for assuming good faith, but you do not hesitate to revert. That is what I mean by intent. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • WHY DO YOU HAVE TO GET SO UPSET SO FAST, GIVE ME THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. I was only reverting so I could get a chance to say something on the discussion page, you edit so fast I hardly get a chance to get a word in edgewise.
  1. There are already multiple references in the article to these individuals.
  2. Douglas E. Cowan himself states below and affirms these facts.
  3. The article was stable before I even knew it existed, this does not seem to be an issue.
  4. Nevertheless, I will pull the refs from the other parts of the article and duplicate them in that location, tedious and repetitive though it may be.
  5. I REQUEST THAT YOU GIVE ME MORE PATIENCE, AND LET ME RESPOND ON TALK PAGES TO CONTROVERSIES, BEFORE GETTING SO UPSET AT ME.....PLEASE.

Yours, Smeelgova 18:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

  • There, that wasn't so hard, was it? And you didn't even have to be mean to get me to acquiese this time. See that? The nicer you are to me, the more apt I will be to work with you and take your suggestions. Smeelgova 18:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
Next time, control the urge to revert and discuss the edit first. It takes two to tango. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes it does, yes it does indeed. And don't tell me what to do in a command form of grammar. I can do what I want, I've learned and I won't 3RR. PLEASE, PLEASE try to be kinder to me and you will see that I will be kinder to you and we will work better together. Please. Smeelgova 19:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Inline refs

I would appreciate some help in migrating all refs to inline refs, as of my last edit. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the request in such a kind manner of speech. I will help you out when I get a chance, I've converted entire articles to inline refs before and it ain't fun, but I much prefer them to the regular refs, as I guess do you. Yours, Smeelgova 19:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
And if I forget to get to it, remind me. Smeelgova 19:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
Let's drop all these "thanks yous" and "yours", etc., OK? It seems that we will be editing together for a while, so I think we can do away with these formalities. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
That's just my style, just how you have your own signature, I act polite. C'mon, I'm trying so hard here to get us to be kinder and gentler to each other, please. Truly yours, Smeelgova 19:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

[mv from user:Jossi talk page]

  • I switched over most of the refs to inline refs that I could find, I think I missed a couple. I left all the refs within the references section alone. I also formatted the references section a bit, and took out some stuff that was dup entries. Let me know if you find missing refs that I didn't spot and didn't switch to inline refs. Glad to be on better footing with you. Yours, Smeelgova 20:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Undue weight

The viewpoints section gives undue weight to the opinions of Ross and Hein. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

We should try to find more references which list/discuss cult aplogists. Smeelgova 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

Sentence seems internally inconsistent

Jossi, your sentence "In view of the persistent and negative use of the term cult apologist by various evangelical countercult apologists, it appears that the neologism cult apologetics has both fallen into disuse and also metamorphosed into a word of opprobrium" seems internally inconsistent to me. It starts off by saying that the term "cult apologist" is in persistent use, and ends by saying that the term has fallend into disuse. Tanaats 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it can't both have "persisent use" and also have "fallen into disuse". I'm changing, hopefully without losing any meaning. Tanaats 20:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok a serious question... It may be clear to you, but it's not at all clear to me and therefore might it not be clear to the average dumb reader. How can a term be in "persistent use" and also have "fallen into disuse"? Do you perhaps mean "In view of the past persistent and negative use"? I won't argue the point further if you want to keep it as is, but I really am curous. Thanks. Tanaats 00:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Cult apologist" is always pejorative?

Jossi, it's really not up to anyone else to find an instance of the use of "cult apologist" that is non-pejorative. It is up to you to "validate" that it is "always" used in a pejorative sense. I would support something like "The term is widely seen as pejorative by those to whom it is applied." Tanaats 19:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Total bollocks, again, one can nver find "prove" that something is always used pejoratively, just as one cannot "prove" that all Zebras have a snout. Fossa 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly!!! That's what makes it "unverifiable" and therefore ineligible for inclusion. Tanaats 23:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, you have not the slightest clue, how science works. Since nothing can be proven (outside math), you would have to delete the entire Wikipedia (ooh, what a swaet dream). Falsifiability is the key concept of science (Critical Rationalism style) and verifiability is simply unachievable. Fossa 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What happens, then, to WP:V? Tanaats 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Let us not pretend that the definition here fulfills WP:V because of the lack of reputable sources for the definition of the term. User:Zappaz used the term in Wikipedia as a proud self-admission. Formally, like always, the burden of proof in Wikipedia is on the person making a claim to provide sources for the claim, so the discussion about falsfiability is not relevant here. I would support writing "often used in a pejorative way". Andries 07:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one that finds this odd?

Am I the only one that finds this odd? Especially in light of the recent extended troll/WP:POINT by User:Wikipediatrix. Anyway, look at the early history of this article and the edit comments. User:Ed Poor starts the article here and fills it with unsourced names of "Cult apologists" while his edit summaries are very suspicious as to where he is coming from.

Those dastardly evil-doers who whitewash the crimes of destructive mind control cults!!!

I like the three exclamation marks on that one.

All this is from the anti-cult movement POV, of course.

and the more tasty bait:

cult apologists are people who are not cult members, but who support cults and defend their unethical activities

Of course, one editor races in for the bait and starts helping out by wikifying; never mentioning that this is all unsourced and highly POV accusation and likely pretty nasty violation of WP:BLP. It is basically "Anti-cult, count me in". Anyway, it just struck me odd. --Justanother 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hell, you should take a look at Anti-Cult Movement sometime.  :)
I'm not sure how relevant the article's early history is, because "Cult apologists" is currently pretty well cited now (unlike Opposition to cults and new religious movements which you may want to look at as another example of an unbalanced article).
Be that as it may, do you have suggestions that in your view would make this article more balanced? Tanaats 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly are you talking about, re Wikipediatrix and WP:POINT? --Tilman 21:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Weren't you following that? See her talk page and the sockpuppet issue. --Justanother 21:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
See here too. --Justanother 21:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't see that before, I knew she was blocked, but hadn't known that she had played from both sides, thus creating an enormous waste of time. This person should be blocked forever. I hope its not someone I know. --Tilman 22:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
A year's worth of disingenuous edits - incredible! Reminds me of Mother Night. --Justanother 22:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this entire article one-sided?

So based on a recent conversation I learned that calling a "cult critic" an "anti-cultist" is perjorative and I came to see that it would, at best, be condescending. Well, calling a critic "anti-cultist" seems, to me, a much more mild perjorative than calling someone that takes a tolerant stance towards NRMs a "cult apologist". And based on my previous note about the origin of this article I now see this whole article as a bit of a troll to see how long a blatently biased article can stand in wikipedia (a long time by the way, when it is, IMO, anti-religious and off the beaten track). So, in response to a previous question as to how to make this article more neutral. Well, you could start by renaming it "NRM scholars whose writings are attacked by anti-cultists cult critics". Because what you have as a title now is a totally POV creation. --Justanother 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Analogy time:

Nigger Lover

The term Nigger Lover is one that is used by white supremacists to describe caucasian people that they think are overly sympathetic to Negro causes.

Allegations against Nigger Lovers

Various claims

Politicians accused of being "Nigger Lovers"

List of names

Hope you'all enjoyed my analogy. --Justanother 19:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I had a good laugh, and it's all too true, but that won't phaze our "cult critics" here, which have a field day in selling their quackery as encyclopedic or even scientific. Fossa?! 19:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A very poor analogy, since "cult" is not a racist term, nor a hate term. --Tilman 19:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know plenty of whites that will tell you that "nigger" is neither of those either and that they have nothing against niggers, they just think that all the niggers should go back to Africa and leave America to us white folk. Where would cult critics have all the "cultists" go? --Justanother 19:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Preferably, back to their loved ones. --Tilman 19:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they already are with their loved ones? Who are you or Rick Ross to say? --Justanother 20:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, cult is not a racist term, that's why it is called an "analogy". Fossa?! 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, "Nigger Lover" out-googles "Cult apologist" 3:1. Guess which gets an article here. And I can guaran-ass-tee you that "nigger lover" is used in society about 1,000,000 times more frequently than "cult apologist". Guess which gets an article here. We all know that we are supposed to be sensitive to minorities. Except if they are religious minorities. --Justanother 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Or rather, a "poor analogy", or "not an analogy at all". --Tilman 19:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The analogy, Tilman, is simply that here, in "Cult apologist", we have taken a derogatory classification of opponents and enshrined it as a topic worthy of discussion. That is why it is one-sided. I used "Nigger Lover" because it is obvious. Nigger Lover is a derogatory classification of opponents that would never be enshrined here as a topic worthy of discussion. "Cult apologist" is not less obvious to me or to others but the general bias of wikipedia would tend to gloss over the obviousness of it. So I made an analogy using an obvious example to highlight what I see so that others can see it too. --Justanother 20:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, then lets also no longer use the word "alcoholic". After all, it is derogatory to people who just happen to like a drink. Or two. Or twelve. --Tilman 21:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously now - Propose change to "NRM scholars and the anti-cult movement"

Or something like that - you'all know your topic better than I. So I challenge you'all to "do the right thing" and fix this. --Justanother 20:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, "cult apologist" is the designation used in the english language. --Tilman 21:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hardly. Or should I say "Yeah, just like "nigger lover"". "Cult apologist" is what "cult critics" call their opponents. Is there RS like a newpaper article that says "Cult apologist Joe Blow will be travelling to Saudi Arabia to attend a symposium on religious freedom in the Middle East". Can you point me at something like that? If not then I say you have no RS that ""cult apologist" is the designation used in the english language." Actually, I think the designation likely used is "NRM scholar" as in "NRM scholar Joe Blow will be travelling to Saudi Arabia to attend a symposium on religious freedom in the Middle East". --Justanother 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I should point out that I do not follow cult/anti-cult activities except in one small sphere so I do not really know any of these players much at all. I am just speaking from what I have observed and tried to discover about this term (not the personalities) and that is what I have already stated. That "cult apologist" is a perjorative term used by one highly biased group to label their opponents. I think I have it right there. --Justanother 21:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Then maybe you shouldn't contribute, if you don't really know much at all. --Tilman 01:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. So if I see a man beating an Akita Inu I should not speak up because I don't know much about Akitas. Is that what you would say? Cause it looks purty analogous to me. --Justanother 03:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think there are two proper options:
  • design the entry like you would for "nigga luvva": Explain it's derogatory intent and the lack of empirical bases for it. de:Neger is actually a promising example for such a route, although, there are also quacks at work, which would like to paint the term as "value neutral";
  • delete it, as it is not a term usually used in scholarly discourse.
Wikipedia will choose option 3: Bow to the quacks of the anti-cult movement. Fossa?! 00:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for proving once again that 1) anti-cult movement is a negative term 2) that it is used to lump them all together ("the quacks"). --Tilman 01:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well "quack" is negative, sure. "Anti-cult movement" is a fairly value-neutral term. Since "cult" is heavily pejorative, it's quite OK to be against "cults": So, being "anti-cult" is quite respectable (as far as the label goes). That's why I need to say "quacks of the ACM", so that it's clear that I do not share or endorse the goals or practices of the ACM. Fossa?! 01:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
So much for opposition to the use of "pejorative" terms. Tanaats 02:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I use them on the "Talk" pages, not in an encyclopedic entry like you do. Fossa?! 11:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming, once again, that you use the term to lump all these people together, to libel them at once. --Tilman 07:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I see you English is just as poor as your German (Is that maybe intentional?): The "quacks of the ACM" means that there are quacks within the ACM, not that each and every member is one. Although, I hasten to add, it's an unusually high percentage, at least of the most vocal activists. But, mind you, of course, I lump all members of the ACM together, that goes with the territory of collective nouns: They share certain characteritics (e.g., their opposition to a least one "cult"). That does not mean that their cannot be internal heterogeneity. All "mammals", "Americans", "monotheists" also share certain characteristics without being a homogenous mass. Fossa?! 11:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
So, is there now also a "Monotheist Movement" in your mind? --Tilman 16:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I once stepped in a "mammal movement". Well, more than once actually. A lot more. --Justanother 17:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe these? [5]  :-) --213.73.114.40 21:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well some of those OSA gals are certainly cute but I do not really get the point of trying to make a mockery of a fellow human being. But I guess if your goal is to dehumanize and objectify them to justify doing whatever you please to them then I guess it makes perfect sense. But as far as my remark above went, I had something in mind more like this --Justanother 22:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re my suggestion: Well, wouldn't it be kinda like if the other side wanted to have an article called "Anti-religious terrorists" for ex-criminal deprogrammers like Rick Ross. I doubt that that is too far off base as the opposite case to what you have here. You know, I am not on a crusade. I just think that you or anyone should be able to look at the title to this article and say "Golly, it really isn't very NPOV, is it?" and I would imagine that if the topic were put up for RfC that would be a no-brainer; the harder fight would be arguing that this article has no place here at all but I imagine a good case could be made there too. --Justanother 03:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Selective / imporper quoting

The material recently added from Barker's "A Comparative Analysis of the Roles of Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups" is summarizing selectively and out of context a table in that report without the benefit of the supporting material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that CDGs (Cult defender groups) are "groups" and not individuals. The only CDG mentioned in that article was the CAN. This article deals with "religious scholars, social scientists, and other persons who write about cults and new religious movements whose writings are considered by these critics and opponents as uncritical or not sufficiently critical." not about "Cult defended groups" that are a whole different animal all together. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I will restore that text, to give the chance so that it can be corrected. (minus the conclusion). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Restored that source, this time with context and without making conclusions. Let the reader do that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2006

(UTC)

The material you added and way you have rewritten that section looks fine. The article "Cult apologist" is about groups and individuals, so it's alright to discuss alleged financial motivations of both groups and individuals related to cult apologism here. Smeelgova 01:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
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.