Talk:Cult apologist/Archive 3

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

External Sources

The following OTHER SOURCES (presumably falling under the rules for WP:EL do not meet the standards in WP:EL.

  • Stephen A. Kent and Theresa Krebs: When Scholars Know Sin, Skeptic Magazine (Vol. 6, No. 3, 1998).
  • Response by Gordon Melton
  • Response by Anson Shupe
  • Response by James R. Lewis
  • Rejoinder to the above by Kent & Krebs
All of the above violate 2. unverifiable research and Reliable Source as well as potentially 11. blog

Lsi john 22:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This particular issue has been discussed ad nauseam earlier actually, you may not have been aware of it. The source is reputable, and it is certainly a relevant EL. Smee 22:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
This is where you tell the kind editor exactly where it has been discussed so he/she can actually get some constructive feedback. Cheers.PelleSmith 04:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you PelleSmith. I have adjusted to reading Smee's declarations of absolute fact. She isn't intentionally being hurtful or condescending, even if her words sometimes read that way. It is just her style of writing. Lsi john 17:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I will review it. Lsi john 17:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi changes

So far, I think Jossi's changes to the article look good. Smee 05:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

  • I agree. One thing I would add, per WP:EL suggestion, is that External Links which represent a single side, in a controversial subject, should indicate in the text, which side they represent.
As an example, RR is very anti-cult. The external link:

"The Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements"

Would probably better serve the reader if it more clearly stated how RR feels. Instead of lengthy wording which seems to imply an unbiased research institution.
Lsi john 18:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, that is the exact wording of the name of the Institute. We cannot imply anything, that would be pushing a point of view. I think the wording is plain, and simply states the name of the organization succinctly. Smee 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
    • I am not aware of a requirement that the name of the institute be given in the reference text. I think this applies:

Avoid undue weight on particular points of view

On articles with multiple points of view, ... Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. ... For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.

Lsi john 19:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Applying that standard, we would have to add a descriptive text to all of the links in the WP:EL section. I think we should not fuss with this, and leave it stand as is, and let the EL descriptions be as short as possible. Smee 19:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Actually, applying a descriptive text to them all would be appropriate, per WP:EL. However if you would like to ignore that guideline, then I propose removing the text which identifies the Institute. It is both lenghty and could easily give a false impression about the information there. This would satisfy your desire for brevity and my desire for clarity.
Besides the fact that his name is mentioned 3 times on the same line.
This is one of the issues that speaks to my feelings about bias. Repeatedly using words, names or titles, can eaily un-intentionally suggest a value-bias which we should avoid.
Lsi john 19:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
What would you have instead of the name of the institute which the link refers to? Smee 19:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
  • It now reads as follows: archived news articles, compiled by Rick Ross (consultant) Smee 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks! That really is much better and much less leading. I believe Jossi touched on it in some of his edits when he removed Dr. or Phd., stating we either include all or none.

I appreciate your willingness to compromise here.

Lsi john 19:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Great. Glad we could come to a consensus here. It is fun working with you at this point in time, since we seem to have a more amenable attitude going at the moment. Smee 19:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Smee, I took time to read the first 6 or 7 links on the Rick Ross page. I honestly do not see where they add any value to this article. To me, most of them appear to be little more than editorial blogs and personal attacks. Personally, I find the term cult apologist to be a hurtful and offensive way to brand someone. Similar in some way to anti-cult activist when it is used pejoratively. While we cannot simply delete the parts of our culture we do not like, we also do not have to link it to our articles.

I accept that Rick Ross may be a WP:RS in some cases, but I truly do not believe that these blogs and editorials lend any significant information to this article. WP:EL

To be avoided: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article

If one or more of the links on that page are relevant, and I missed them, then perhaps they could be linked directly. Otherwise, it seems to me that those links are mostly rhetoric, name calling, very little substance and really add no value to this article (other than examples of how pejoratively the term is used and how freely it is bandied about).

Lsi john 23:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you look you will see that each of the individual sources is a secondary source, usually an archived news article. Smee 01:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
  • I agree that some (not all) of them are from reliable sources. I acknoledged that before.
I also believe that many of them are merely RR opinions from CultNews.com. I don't believe that CultNews.com is a reliable source.
As I said before, a letter to the editor to the Washington Post, might qualify to be listed separately, but linking to the main page, which contains so many questionable links is not proper, in my opinion.
I don't know if you understand why I find that material so objectionable or not. I think perhaps if someone talked about you they way Rick Ross talks about his cult apologists it might make more sense. I don't like name-calling, I never have. I know we have had our misunderstandings with words, and I am trying to be careful not to be misunderstood now. It may not have seemed like it before, but I have very strict moral and ethical limits on what I will and will not say, and what I will and will not do. I also agree that my objection to the material as hateful and mean spirited is not a basis for keeping it out of an article.
However,
  1. I do not believe that most of those link lend significant value to the article.
  2. I do not believe that just because we can include something means we should include it.
Please review them and reconsider their value to this article.
Lsi john 02:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed them at length, and also considered your points above. However, the majority of the reputable sources archived are simply secondary news articles and the like, and not material authored by Ross. Smee 05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Three of the first Six are RR / Cultnews.com. Another is RR letter to the editor (which could technically qualify). Still 50% of the top 6 there are RR commentary and those are the ones most likely to be read. To me that is a very heavy % bias, not simply an acceptable amount of non WP:RS. Lsi john 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, and you do have a right to your opinion. However, the majority of the material really is simply archived news articles from reputable sources. Smee 05:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
  • And, it is incumbent upon us to not allow bias into our articles. WP:EL is clear

"When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability polciy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means." <- non-RS material should not be used.

"Should be linked: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." <- Suggests neutrality.

"To be avoided 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked." <- suggests deeper links are an option." <- the link in question contains a variety of links. While on-subject, not all are wp:rs and thus similar to not on-subect

The WP:EL guidelines appear to call for us to avoid linking to unqualified material.
When taken together, I do not believe we should provide a link which directs readers to a page of links, where 50% of the top 6 links are not WP:RS. If these are valid citable sources, they should be referenced in the article. That is my opinion, and the above is my wiki-rationale for it. Including this general link to multiple non WP:RS documents compromises the integrity of our article. Lsi john 13:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • However, of the total links displayed, the vast majority are to reputable archived news articles - as opposed to simply looking at the "top 6"... Smee 02:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Statistically, people click on one or two of the top links and then move on.
As I understand your answer, it is an acceptable to violate WP:EL and link to non-compliant material as long as some compliant material exists in the link. I can accept that compromise.
Thank you for taking time to respond. Lsi john 03:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You have misinterpreted my answer. I am stating that as the majority of the total links on the page are to reputable archived news articles, it is a useful and most appropriate external link. Smee 03:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
Based on the guidelines for wiki, it is most inappropriate and must be removed by wiki policy. A majority of links does not permit us to offer non WP:RS material to the readers. We must either link directly to the permitted items, or link to nothing at all. Lsi john 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Notice how that is different than this:
I believe that it is not appropriate, because Wiki policy suggests that we refrain from using any links which contain non WP:RS material. I feel that we should link to each separate article which is RS and not to a main page which contains 50% non RS material in the top 6 items.
Wiki policy does not say we can link to something as long as it is mostly RS. Lsi john 01:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

Just a friendly notice that the article has been unprotected. Smee 05:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Pejorative/devisive

Someone may wish to add the following cited text to this article:

Academics have said the term Cult apologist is one of several:

"divisive labels that are hardly conducive to encouraging dialogue or discernment." http://www.math.mcgill.ca/triples/infocult/ControversyCSR.doc

Lsi john 00:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This is an interesting article. I will add this to the article shortly. However, we should utilize the entire quote: The use of terminology such as “Anti-Cult Movement” (ACM) and “Pro-Cult Movement” (PCM), “anti-cultist” and “pro-cultist” or “cult apologist” are examples of divisive labels that are hardly conducive to encouraging dialogue or discernment.

Smee 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

  • I disagree. This specific article is about cult apologist. There is no significant value to bringing in the other terms. Unless you intend to bring them in on other articles as well.
Could you take a moment to explain why you feel it adds significant value to bring in the full text here?
Also, please explain why you do not use the full text in other articles. (If you need a specific article for an example, I would be willing to locate one.)
It seems to me, that you wanted brievity before, and now you are including other terms unrelated to the article. I can accept that compromise, as long as we also expand the quotes in other articles to include unrelated material. Lsi john 03:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


Kropveld, Michael (June 2002). "An Example for Controversy: Creating a Model for Reconciliation". American Family Foundation Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida: International Cultic Studies Association. 

  • This is the citation, will add to the article momentarily ... Smee 03:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I must say that I am a bit offended that you are adding text before we reach an agreement. I thought we were working together and now you seem to be dismissing my input. Lsi john 03:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I thought you were posting the information here, precisely because you wanted this citation to be added to the article. I am confused. Smee 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
I am, however it seemed from your words that you had decided exactly how the text would be worded, and you were issuing a declaration that you were going to post momentarily. I suppose I assumed that I would have a bit more input. Your statement sounded fairly final. I thought it would be better to tell you that I was offended, than storm off angry and hurt. Lsi john 04:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Noted, but that was most certainly not my intention. Smee 05:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Quotefarm

  • Please bear with me, I have an idea for this that will be balanced. Smee 03:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
You are welcome to improve that section. But four quotes does not make a quote farm... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

unbalanced

This article now reads as a definition from the anti-cult perspective and is unbalanced.

I believe the term cult apologist is clearly pejorative to anyone who takes any time at all to analyze the term.

First, it directly implies that the person is apologizing for a cult.

To be used correctly and un-pejoratively, two things would need to apply:

  1. The group being discussed is actually a cult, not simply something that someone has decided is a cult.
  2. The person is actually apologizing for, not simply defending, the cult. Defending would be a cult-defender.

The fact that two cited references state that the term is 1) pejorative and 2) divisive is important enough to include it in the opening paragraph.

In good faith I will assume that the recent modifications were not intended to bias the article. However, in my opinion, that is exactly what they did. There are two reliable sources which cite the term as both pejorative and divisive and that makes it relevant enough to include in the opening paragraph. Certainly deserving of more than a diluted brief mention at in the closing remarks of the article.

"Anti-Cult Movement", "Pro-Cult Movement", and "anti-cultist" are not directly related to this article and including that text seems unnecessary. This article is not about those labels.

I welcome discussion and request justification for why very relevant information was moved to the bottom of the article and diluted.

As an example,
if a company's opening statement which reads "ABC is LGAT" is justified because a citation was found that made the claim.. then it is equally justified to say that this term is pejorative in the opening remarks, with exactly the same justification.
Anything else is unbalanced and writing from the pov of a particular side.

Lsi john 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, using wording found in other articles in this subject-line, the first or second (as a compromise) paragraph should state:

Academics have classified the term as both pejorative[1] and divisive[2] and not constructive towards productive dialogue.

Lsi john 22:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your suggestion, it has been incorporated into the intro. Smee 07:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Thank you. The change is noted and appreciated. Lsi john 13:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Smee, You recently tagged your edit "return to concensus version". I am not sure that is accurate. We agreed that pejorative and devisive should be in the opening lead. You stuck it at the end of the second paragraph and I accepted not to fight with you about it. However, I disagree with your claim that your recent revert/edit was back to a consensus version. The original (and more accurate in my opinion) version of the text was closer to the version you recently reverted/deleted.

Based on your other contributions, when a reliable source says "ABC is LGAT", that is exactly what gets put in the first line of the article. I believe, in this case, the first line of the article should, in fact, read "cult apologist is a pejorative and divisive label...".

Smee, if you take a moment to understand what I'm saying, it may also help explain why some people accuse you of putting POV into your articles. There is an appearance of bias in your articles, due to seemingly higher-ranking being given to anti-cult idiology over anything critical of the anti-cult itiology.

Lsi john 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Lsi john, if you cannot focus on discussing content rather than continually attempting to analyze me and what you think my actions are and how to correct them - we will not have a constructive dialogue. Please, please, stop attempting to fix my behaviour patterns. It is getting annoying. Please, instead focus on discussing the content of articles. Thanks. Smee 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Actually we seemed to be have been having a much more constructive dialog this way, but if you want no constructive feedback on your tactics, then I will respectfully honor your request and refrain.
Since you have now declared that you have no interest in altering your style of editing or the way you attack users, by inappropriately tagging them with warnings, instead of discussion, I respectfully request that you allow me out of my mediation agreement not to edit articles which you have edited within the past 3 months.

Lsi john 21:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Since you have now declared that you have no interest in altering your style of editing or the way you attack users, by inappropriately tagging them with warnings, instead of discussion -- This is entirely an inaccurate assessment! I am all for discussing content on talk pages, but you continually seem to only want to criticize me over and over, instead of discussing content. This is not conducive to any type of constructive dialogue about the articles themselves. Surely you can see that. Smee 22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Just as surely as you can see that reverting someone else's extensive and time consuming edits without regard to an existing discussion is rude and not conducive to any type of constructive dialog about the articles themselves. Yet that is exactly what you do.
Why is it you can see things that are so obvious about other people, but you can't seem to see exactly the same things about your own conduct?
Why are your opinions always stated as fact? I find it incredibly unconstructive when you arrogantly declare your opinion as fact and shut down the entire dialog. Lsi john 23:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Let us both take a step back here, perhaps some wording is getting misinterpreted, but things are definitely a bit too heated at this time. Let us focus on discussing specific issues related to content of articles, and not each others perceived behaviour patterns. Smee 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Agreed. I will refrain from making comments and observations about your actions. I request the same of you. Please do not tell me that my edits, comments, or ideas are WW:THIS or WP:THAT and do not declare that I am WP:NPA (or any other rule violation), without obtaining an official ruling from wherever on wiki you obtain such a ruling.
For or the record, I am open to feedback from anyone on how my actions or words are interpreted, provided it is phrased as an opinion and not declared as a fact. If I have been mis-understood, it is only through feedback that I can realize this and make a correction. Lsi john 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I will do my best not to discuss your behaviour specifically, but wherein it pertains to policies - well, I will try to seek out opinions of others first - that is a good idea as well. But I will continue to comment on the content of the article itself, with regards to WP:RS and the like... Smee 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
As long as you clearly state that it is your opinion, unless you have obtained a wiki-ruling or neutral 3O, I am in agreement. Lsi john 00:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Statements made by editors on talk pages are inherently their own opinions. Smee 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

And it is a sign of respect to the other editors, when the editor self-acknowledges that it is an opinion being given. Conversely, it is a sign of arrogance and disrespect when an editor words his/her opinion as an indisputable fact. One method moves both parties closer to compromise. The other method serves to drive a wedge between them and to widen the gap and thus diminish any hope of compromise or agreement. Lsi john 01:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily true, for that statement is also, your opinion. Sometimes obvious statements of fact are just that, for instance, when informing someone as to the nature of WP:RS or another policy. Smee 03:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Combating pseudoscience, Example

Let me offer the dear fellow wikipedians a bit of advice. Feel free and do not be afraid to rephrase and delete. Be advice that every "cult-related" or "anti-cult" article is in the area of interest for the very same anti-cult movement activists. Their methodology is also very same - to expand article as much as possible with examples of "evil deeds committed by cults" (often unproven and unreliable); to add as much links and references as possible (of which they maintain a database per each "cult"); to quote pseudo-scientific activist publications for added weight; to portray science ws. witchhunt problem as if some "pro-cult" and "anti-cult" movements are arguing with each other.

Now be adviced that in reality most of 'authoritative sources' quoted are discredited by scientific circles for distortion of scientific methods or possess no qualification at all. We may leave these 'sources' with no problem as nobody is going to read them anyway.

Then we go and delete material from the article, no problem with that. Per each deletion we provide explanation in talks. 90% of negative information will go away. Per 10% remaining we create a section, entitled 'criticisms' or 'debate' and then we briefly state who is explaining what. Encyclopedia stands for science, it is not a forum for debates and accusations, so all the things like "he said this but his opponenents said that" we remove. That is non NPOV, that is turning encyclopedia into internet forum. Especially in this article we again see a section on Jim Jones, just copied from some pile of negative anti-cult propaganda to associate NRMs with death, exploitation and weird things. Negative PR of sorts. We just DELETE this for it belongs to article on Jim Jones.

OK, let's see what can be done:

The term cult apologist is used by some opponents of cults and new religious movements[1] to describe social scientists, religious scholars, and other persons who write about cults and new religious movements, whose writings they consider as uncritical or not sufficiently critical.

For a start, "cult apologist" is not a term. There is no science which employs terms like these. It's an expression, a negative characterization of legitimate scholars who for some reason are not part of 'anti-cult movement'. Nobody is deemed to be sympathetic, they say your research has no value as you are owned by the cult. For example, your research show there are no negative effects on mental health among those who practice this religious group, but that's because you're a cult apologist. If they question the research that must debate on its merits, there is a peer review process for that. But no, they cannot do that. Therefore there is really zero debate between scholars. Scholars agree that there is no such thing as 'mind control', there is no such thing as 'destructive cult', many thing does not exist in scientific community. So we just, after proper explanation per each idiotic passage go ahead and DELETE this. This is how it works. Anti-cult guys will cry for NPOV, but that's no problem as they don't know what NPOV is and what encyclopedia is (which is even more important). NPOV is to keep the article neutral, we do this by keeping its text close to scientific standards and this we do by writing which is commonly accepted findings among academia, fringe groups are left out. IF anti-cultists feel mistreated, we may add a section on this. For example, many believe they are mistreated by the scientific community, as they are fighting for a much needed and just but unpopular cause, not merely ostracized for bad research and activism. We can add that! :-)


Cult apologist is a critical label used by some opponents of cults and new religious movements[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.241.194 (talk • contribs)
-

Indeed. Lsi john 12:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically it could be both a term and a label, depending on its usage.

"webster.com Term(n) 4 a : a word or expression that has a precise meaning in some uses or is peculiar to a science, art, profession, or subject"

However, my suggestion above, based on two reliable sources, and which was essentially dismissed by Smee was this:

Cult apologist is a pejorative and divisive label used by .....

Lsi john 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on an agreement I made in mediation with Smee, I am prevented from editing this article. I have respectfully requested that she release me from that agreement. I am awaiting her decision. Lsi john 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

compromise

Since when is a revert the same as a compromise? Lsi john 04:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Smee, please to not revert and then re-edit things. Please start where the last editor left off. When you revert, you lose spelling corrections and other miscelaneous edits. Please demonstrate respect for your fellow contributors. Lsi john 04:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I have put forth a good faith attempt at a compromise here. Smee 05:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Thank you. And I would still like to understand why its necessary to include all the extra words that my reference says are divisive? They don't relate to this article. It seems to me that this same thing, when it points the other way, gets cut out, but when it waters down the statement about cult-apologist, it gets included.
This just seems wrong to me. And you revert my edits, instead of discussing it and explaining the logic.
Why don't I deserve the time it takes to explain why? And I don't mean why is it allowed. I mean why does it add significant value and what logic suggests that it should be included?
Lsi john 04:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

definition

This definition is not cited anywhere. Bringing it in, presumably to explain the usage, seems to be WP:OR.

This word is being used in modern English. Unless there is a citation which shows that the definition you have provided is the intended meaning by the majority who use this term, then it is improper to include this obscure ancient definition.

Is there a citation that explains this definition in this manner? If not, please delete the definition as improper. Lsi john 04:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


I agree, the intro "opponents of cults and new religious movements[1]" only lists one example of the definition of the term as used by a solitary source... more sources should be provided, or as Lsi john said - a reliable source which shows that the term is real should be brought forward. Sfacets 07:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's actually a label, not a term. It is used to label people, not describe them.
That being said, it is real, because it is used by the anti-cult community. My objection, is to the definition which cites ancient terminology, in an attempt to obfuscate the real meaning. The definition provided in the Other uses section, tries to imply that apologist doesn't mean to apologize but instead means defend and thus to imply that this term is somehow less pejorative and name-calling than it actually is.
The usage of this term, in context, is not some ancient greek version, it is being used in every day language to attack and discredit people of opposing beliefs. It is being used like a "do you still beat your wife?" question, by adding the cult apologist label to those with opposing ideas or beliefs, those that use the term seek to discredit by insinuation. This is the usage, this is the meaning and to attempt to hide that, is unacceptable.
Unless there is a citation, from the people who are using the term, which indicates that they are speaking ancient greek, then this definition needs to be removed from the article as irrelevant and original research. Lsi john 13:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)