Talk:Groups referred to as cults in government documents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Groups referred to as cults in government documents article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
An entry from Groups referred to as cults in government documents appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 10 March 2007, here.
Wikipedia


NOTE:
See also prior discussions at Talk:List of groups referred to as cults.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Summary of arguments against change

Since we have a new visitor, I will summarize the arguments against to save any new visitors the trouble of wading through previous talk. Anyone else that argues against may edit or add to my remarks but will those that argue for the change please not start threaded discussion here.

  1. The change dilutes the value of the page. The value of the page is that the "reports" listed carry some official weight. Since some would like to include "documents" that carry no official weight, the value of the article is diluted.
  2. The change is redundant since we already have an article, List of groups referred to as cults, to cover general RS references. If the "documents" do not carry the weight of the issuing government then the discussion simply becomes "Are they RS?" If they are then they can go in the more general article.

This is all for now, especially as I am allegedly on wikibreak, this being one of two issues I have pending. --Justanother 12:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of arguments for change

[edit] Discuss of above "against" and "for" arguments

I'm trying to follow Justanother's instructions ("argue against"):
1. "The value of the page is that the "reports" listed carry some official weight. Since some would like to include "documents" that carry no official weight, the value of the article is diluted.".
Essentially this is an argument that artificially dicotomizes (divides into two parts) what is a natural continuum of minimal to much official weight, partly based on differing political perceptions (for example, the U.S. lower bicameral House gets fairly vocal at periodic suggestions that they are less important than the Senate). There is a range of government "official weights" that Wikipedia can't exactly rank without legitimate dispute. I think the better answer is to describe the sources, explain how the fact-checked words get made public, describe rankings generally, and explain that there are some inexact government "official weights" for which the reader will need to decide a ranked importance (e.g., it passed only one house, part of it passed, part of it was vetoed, part of it was later deprecated but not retracted by the executive, etc).
2. "The change is redundant" I wish this were true, but currently, it isn't for two reasons:
Reason A: As I recall it, there is currently no consensus to put any government report or document references in List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC). (Justanother is invited to join me (Milo), Will Beback and maybe Antonrojo(?) in consensing the return of fact-checked government references to LOGRTAC.)
Reason B: LOGRTAC is currently a list article with sidebar criteria and disclosures, while LOGRTACIGR has heavy item-specific text sections, which is why there is considerable support for textifying LOGRTACIGR by dropping "List of".
Milo 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cults identified in government sources

The current and proposed titles are too long and should be streamlined. Logic suggests that a cult is a group, unless we're including a "cult of personality" which we aren't. The inclusion of the word group is meant to project the impression that the cults may not be cults by the definition of others. This does need to be said IN THE ARTICLE, not the title.

Issues dealing with the weight of words like report in the US government are ignoring what other countries might call them. To correct this I propose we use the word sources to include reports, documents, memos, e-mails, pictures, etc. in one sentiment.

To clarify, I am not saying all government reports are equal
A Congressional report should carry more weight than the disputed CRS report, which I assumed everybody understood. The fact that both are government reports should be undisputed though, especially since CRS is part of the government and the word report appears in the title of the item in question.

It does need to be mentioned that the report is from 1979 though to ensure that the reader does not get the impression that the list is still current. Anynobody 23:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • This sounds like a very good idea. Let us hear what others feel about this. Smee 00:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Nothing is "identified". Also "cult" is a loaded English term and so we cannot say that about non-English reports. So what can we say? We can say that some religious groups have been the subject of concern by governments and that this concern has been expressed by means of some report or other. How can we streamline that? That is the question. --Justanother 01:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Anynobody, there is no fact that both are government reports. You have one opinion and other editors have another opinion. Your sentence should be My claim that both are government reports should not be disputed. And that, in all honesty, would be a silly claim to make considering that the CRS says they don't write government reports without specific legislative direction. If the CRS itself disputes your claim, it makes no sense for you to assert that it is fact and should be undisputed. Its time to drop that argument and move on. Lsi john 15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
identify verb, meanings 1 or 3
These governments have either identfied groups as cults or discussed doing so (Belgium).

Justanother if they weren't identifying cults, what were they doing? Anynobody 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, I would take issue with several of your assumptions.
  1. The words “groups referred to as…” is found in the title is because without those words, it amounts to an endorsement of the view that the groups are in fact cults. That would by contrary to Wikipedia standards, amounting to both original research and use of controversial language.
  2. Your assertion that the CRS is part of the government is incorrect. It is part of the civil service, which assists one of the branches of US government so it can exercise its functions. However, just because some person or organisation works for, is owned by or is created by the government does not mean that person or organisation is part of the government (i.e. the administrative authorities that govern the country) or is entitled to act in the name of the government.
As mentioned above, the report/document/source debate is largely irrelevant. Yes, these words intuitively create different shades of meaning, but the key dispute here is the operative word ‘government’, which, when used as an adjective, implies that the document in question originates from that country's administrative authorities. -- Really Spooky 12:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In line with my previous post, I wonder if what we are really talking here is Religious groups that have been investigated by governments? Probably not. The CRS report is a good bellwether (might not be the best word) by which I mean an article that includes, say, the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France but excludes the work of the Congressional Research Service would be a step in the right direction. The former represents the view of a duly convened commission while the latter is simply a research piece into existing literature for internal purposes and guidance and carries no official weight. --Justanother 15:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Really Spooky to address your second point first, I disagree with your assessment of CRS NOT being part of the government. The response Justanother got stated:

CRS, like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as parts of the Legislative Branch, serve the Congress but do not “speak for it.”

To prove it is a "civil service" you'll need some kind of documentation saying so.

As to the assumption that the wording endorses ...the groups are in fact cults..., that is true since it's is what the sources are asserting.

By second guessing the correct "term" for the groups we are engaging in WP:OR, if the source calls them cults so should the article. If you have a government source stating that they are not perhaps the term “groups referred to as…” would be appropriate. Anynobody 20:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john these are not my opinions:

The GAO investigators found a 1989 case in Montana in which members of a "doomsday religious cult"

The use of the word cult is what this source calls this group, calling it anything else would be WP:OR without a source to back it.

Also, please stop posting out of chronological order. I understand you are trying to be clear about who you are responding to, but as new conversations are generated in the middle of old ones it tends to make the whole page unreadable. Anynobody 20:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

AN, it seems you may be confused as to whom you are responding to. Your answer doesn't address any of my comments. Lsi john 21:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, it appears that you do not understand the meaning of the term civil service, although I provided a link to avoid ambiguity. The quote you posted confirms precisely the point I was making, namely that the CRS ‘serves the Congress but does not speak for it’.
It also appears you failed to understand the original research point, although I provided a link to avoid ambiguity. If one removes the words “groups referred to as…”, the title effectively amounts to an endorsement of the view that the groups referred by said governments are cults. However, just because a government has labelled a group a cult doesn’t make it true. To assume otherwise is original research, as it amounts to saying that ‘government A calls group X a cult, therefore it is a cult’. -- Really Spooky 23:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize that I missed the wikilink you provided, however it actually goes to prove my point. I hadn't wanted to appear condescending but the US government defines civil service as (emphasis mine):

In the United States, term "civil service" was coined in 1872. The Federal Civil Service is defined as "all appointive positions in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, except positions in the uniformed services." (U.S. Code Title 5 § 2101

Mike Brown was the appointed head of FEMA, by saying civil service isn't part of the government but helps it function you're saying he worked for whom? (In other words, if FEMA is not part of the governemnt then what is it?).

WP:OR begins when the article starts to make assertions not included in the cited sources. This is how the flow of information is supposed to go:

Not WP:OR Source says X then Wikipedia says X. Source and Wikipedia say cult.

This is what we have:

WP:OR Source says X then Wikipedia says X+Y. Source says cult, Wikipedia says groups referred to as

(X being an assertion)(Y being an alternative perspective) I assure you I understand both the relevant policies and guidelines as well as government sourcing. Anynobody 23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john I get the impression you think I'm saying that they are actually cults, I was making it clear to you that the word "cult" isn't mine. Anynobody 23:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of what you thought. you were clear. thank you. Lsi john 01:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll add my own spin to Anynobody's correct[?] analysis. Whether it's the high official or policy-declaration part of government, or the lowly research part of the government that's "is"ing a cult — either way it's a fact-checked reliable source "is"ing a cult. Wikipedia can neither harden or soften a fact-checked government utterance. If a particular fact-checked government utterance says Montana Doomsday is a cult — then they is a cult — and Wikipedia salutes and also says they is a cult. Milo 06:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody/Milo, you are conflating the concepts ‘work for the government’ and ‘part of the government’. It appears this is due to your misunderstanding of the word ‘government’. A government is that which governs. In this context of a state, it is those administrative authorities that are entitled to make, enforce and adjudicate the rules that govern those living there. The CRS does none of those things, it only conducts research, and its research is neither binding on the government nor is it, without more, representative of the government’s position or policies in any way.
To illustrate, are secretaries or assistants employed by the board of directors of a company ‘part of the board’? No, they are not; and even if an individual member of the board asked a research assistant to prepare a executive report for him or her, such a report could not be truthfully described as a ‘board report’ unless it was adopted by the board or at the very least requested by the board itself.
So in response to your question I of course have no problem saying the head of FEMA works for the government. But that is irrelevant to the point I am making. Indeed the head of FEMA is part of the government, because he exercises executive authority delegated to him by the President. That is in stark contrast to the CRS, to whom Congress has delegated no legislative authority whatsoever.
I should also clear up a 'straw man' objection raised by Smee above. No one is saying that everyone in the government must unanimously endorse a report for it to be described as a 'government report'; I agree that would be a ridiculously high standard. All that is required is that the report be adopted by some body that is entitled to act in the name of the government and which in fact has acted within that authority. That would include the US Congress on legislative matters, the courts on judicial matters and the President (along with the various departments to which he delegates executive authority) on executive matters.
As for your comments on the WP:OR point, these are so breathtakingly wrong that they can only be due to honest confusion on your part. What you have effectively said is that if source X says Y, then Wikipedia must accept and report Y as fact. In reality, Wikipedia is supposed to report that source X said Y. Thus, if source X says group Y is a cult, Wikipedia does not report that group Y is a cult, but rather that source X has referred to group Y as a cult. In doing so, Wikipedia neither endorses nor questions the truth of the statement, it merely reports it. -- Really Spooky 12:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Really Spooky, you clearly misunderstood the WP:OR example I provided:(Cult=X) (groups referred to as=Y) This is an example of correct sourcing:

Source says cult, Wikipedia says cult
It is not our job to interpret or change what the source says. (Source says X Wikipedia says X)

This is WP:OR:

Source says cult, Wikipedia says groups referred to as cult. (Source says X Wikipedia says Y+X)
The point is you're adding research by second guessing a source this way, this new research is ORIGINAL without a source backing it.

I'll post more about your inaccurate view of what constitutes part of the government a bit later. Anynobody 21:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I understood your comment correctly. Feel free to re-read my last post. -- Really Spooky 21:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
No you didn't, this comment is simply wrong: What you have effectively said is that if source X says Y, then Wikipedia must accept and report Y as fact. I said if a Source says X (X=cult) then Wikipedia should say X also. You are saying we need to add Y (groups referred to as) to what the source said X.
Situation Information What we said Final WP:OR?
1.WP:ATT source says X X X No
2. WP:ATT source says X X + Y X + Y Yes
Anynobody 22:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Situation Information What we said Final WP:OR?
1. WP:ATT sources says X X X No Yes
2. WP:ATT sources says X X + Y WP:ATT sources say X X + Y WP:ATT sources say X Yes No
Thank you for the helpful chart. I have adjusted it to reflect the correct position in respect of your proposed title. -- Really Spooky 23:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


The table is interesting. Note that Miss Mondegreen claims that WP:ATT isn't (yet) policy, so probably WP:RS should be referenced if it doesn't otherwise matter.
After thinking about this some more, it could be that none of the three of us have it quite right. I see that this is no longer a list article, and that may affect the judgment I made above where I've added a question mark. I sense that maybe neither of you understands primary sources, versus secondary reliable sources, versus a third concept (which AFAIK I named) of "primary reliable sources".
I think there's some confusion caused by what is meant by "says Y" and "said" generally. I prefer the terminology of "says/said" descriptions versus "is/is'ed" judgments. I wrote a hypothetical example at Talk:List of groups referred to as cults#Some checking of the sources given would help which I will abbreviate here:

• The concepts of reliable source (fact checked) and types of source (primary, secondary and tertiary) are different. ... A reliable or unreliable source can contain any type of source in any combination. Containing a particular type of source (i.e., secondary) does not make a source reliable. ... [Here's my example]:

I write: A hypothetical article that only prints a speech by Joe where this politican denounces Jimmy as a cult leader, is a primary source for Joe's statement (attributing that Joe really did say Jimbo is cult leader). Only when ... analysis kicks in (several primary sources are integrated and opinions are weighted), then a secondary source may surface -- suitable to properly attribute an assertion in a tertiary source (encyclopedia), that Jimbo really is a cult leader.


If you could both state your positions (and table?) using the primary source really did say and secondary reliable source really is terminologies, it might be helpful.
"Primary reliable sources" — that's my term for the way ordinary reliable sources are utilized by "referred to as", as implemented at LOGRTAC. The referenced sources are valid secondary reliable sources, but by consensus of "referred to as", they are being used only as descriptive sources, as if they were primary.
A reference is descriptive. A reference says, 'Here is a place where c-u-l-t appears.' The Wikiguide authority to do this is stated in both Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Attribution:

"Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge."

So, Anynobody, maybe editors have constructively agreed to not "is" cults while writing as Wikipedia in a referred-to-as article. But since this is now a text article, it seems ok to describe fact-checked government sources that declare certain groups to be cults, like "X says Y". Milo 00:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue of primary, secondary, tertiary sources wasn't what I was talking about and could confuse the issue of WP:OR which I was discussing. Regardless of whether it is primary/secondary the point is we should say what that source says. Anynobody 00:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"wasn't what I was talking about" Yes. I doubt there is any OR to be confused. My impression is both of you think what the other wants to do is OR, because neither of you understands primary and secondary sources, including the so far undocumented use of "primary reliable sources" as conferred by "referred to as".
"we should say what that source says" There are two ways of saying what the source says: description and assertion, classically associated with primary sources and secondary reliable sources respectively. But "referred to as" is a new paradigm which resists being classically analyzed, because it is associated with some characteristics of both primary sources and secondary reliable sources. Milo 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I assure you I understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, and they are not part of this discussion YET. WP:OR happens when the sources are used to make an argument not in the sources themselves (be they primary or secondary), correct me if I'm wrong. Anynobody 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody writes:"WP:OR happens when the sources are used to make an argument not in the sources themselves (be they primary or secondary)" Yes. (Note that one can only describe, not assert, an argument made in a primary source — which is a different issue than OR).
Anynobody writes:"This is WP:OR: 'Source says cult, Wikipedia says groups referred to as cult. (Source says X Wikipedia says Y+X)'". No. There is no argument Y, therefore no OR. An example of argument Y would be additional content not found in the source, such as 'Wikipedia says groups referred to as cults are caused by them eating green cheese' .
I think what you are doing is mistaking a structure of language for being a content of language. "Referred-to" is a pointer, which is a structural feature. And the structural target of that pointer is perfectly implied by the source language; within the source, someone really did refer to a group as a cult. Milo 02:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how your definition of additional content doesn't include the artificial perspective added with the statement "groups referred to as".
Source
Montana Doomsday Religious Cult - "Church Universal and Triumphant". The source calls them a cult.
Wikipedia
Montana Doomsday Religious (group referred to as a) Cult - "Church Universal and Triumphant".
Saying that the group is referred to something implies more than one view. I understand that there ARE many views but unless there is a source to express them it's an unreferenced assertion.(AKA WP:OR) Anynobody 04:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
"additional content doesn't include ... perspective" Perspective isn't content, so the structure of language can't include or contain perspective where other content is stored. Content and perspective are a separate class of factors, like apples in a TV studio (the content), apples as seen on TV (a structure holding the content), and an audience watching the apples on TV (the perspective observers of the content held within a structure).
"artificial perspective added with the statement "groups referred to as"." It isn't artificial. References, including the "referred to" form, are a perfectly-implied natural pointing feature of language, of which reference encyclopedias are a written extension.
"unless there is a source to express them it's an unreferenced assertion" "Perfectly-implied" means that there exists a built-in language right-of-use (it's there but hidden), or right-of-transformation (convert one matrix-identical form to another), without authority from an external rule. An example of language right-of-transformation is the use of perfect synonyms in paraphrasing. Milo 04:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it be fair to say that based on your answer you'd approve changing the article called cults and governments to groups referred to as cults and governments? (I'm not setting up a straw man, just curious about your view.) Anynobody 05:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V verifiable, WP:RS reliable sources

It should also be noted that verifiable, reliable sources are not a guarantee of 100% accuracy. Their fundamental quality does vary, and no type is necessarily more accurate than another so common sense must be used. If a us citizen writes to their federal representatives asking for information said rep doesn't know but wants to, the CRS is who will provide an answer. Take this example from the United States Senate, Senator Joe Lieberman describes them at his official website:

CRS Documents
 To better inform and serve my constituents, I am providing below several well-researched and informative documents from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS is part of the Library of Congress, and is a non-partisan group devoted to supporting Congress with research, analysis and reference.

– Senator Joe Lieberman's office

The fact that a source is the government does not make it the opinion of the government, only very special reports/papers like a Congressional report can come close to that. There are a few general distinctions when talking about the source of information, this list is by no means comprehensive.

  1. Private sources, such as self employed authors or researchers working for a privately owned/publicly traded company.
  2. Educational sources, such as a textbook or academic research paper.
  3. Religious/non-profit sources, such as a report by MADD or a religious publication.
  4. Government and public domain (capitalized for consistency not proper nature)
* Federal government
  • Military
* State or regional government (Not all countries have "states")
  • Municipal government (city)

If CRS is not a part of the government please tell me where on this list it belongs, or if I have left out a source in the list please add that too. Anynobody 00:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The CRS is part of the civil service. -- Really Spooky 12:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is part of the government (like FEMA). Anynobody 04:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is not like FEMA, for the reasons I already made clear in my post at 12:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC) above, which of course you could not have failed to have read, since you replied to that post. -- Really Spooky 08:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you are referring to this analogy:

To illustrate, are secretaries or assistants employed by the board of directors of a company ‘part of the board’? No, they are not; and even if an individual member of the board asked a research assistant to prepare a executive report for him or her, such a report could not be truthfully described as a ‘board report’ unless it was adopted by the board or at the very least requested by the board itself.

The secretaries and the board are both part of the company though aren't they? If the board asks for a report you're right it isn't necessarily called a "board report" but it's definitely called a "company report" in the sense that it was written by and for the hypothetical company in question.
I honestly have been trying to avoid treating you in a condescending manner but you are suggesting that agencies created, staffed, and run by the government AREN'T part of it:
  1. Job opportunities at the Library of Congress from the OPM usajobs.opm.gov website.
  2. specific ad for a Specialist in Military Operations and Policy SERIES & GRADE: GS-0101-15/15
  3. FEMA gets their applicants through the OPM too, what a coincidence.
  4. so does the DIA and
  5. NASA [1].
These civil service positions look like government jobs to me. Anynobody 09:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, I must once again ask you to read the entirety of my post at 12:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC) with an open mind, because I made my position very clear. Yes, I am quite clearly saying that “agencies created, staffed, and run by the government AREN’T part of it”, provided those agencies are neither vested with nor exercise any governmental authority (i.e. the authority to govern, such as is vested in the legislature, the executive and the judiciary).
Thus the Library of Congress is not part of the government, whereas FEMA is. The status of NASA and the DIA are less certain to me, since in the first case it is difficult to see how the space program is a function of public administration, whereas in the second case the military is traditionally considered to be strictly separate from the government (although the position might be different with an intelligence service if it determines government policy). In short, one would have to look more closely at the scope of the functions and authority of these bodies, but they aren’t in issue here anyway.
The distinction that is failing to click in your head (no offence intended, I am AGF that you are not engaging in deliberate obfuscation) is the distinction between working for the government, being “created, staffed or run by the government”, and actually being or representing the government. The civil service is by definition a body of government employees, so I don't see what point you are trying to make with all those USAJobs links, unless you have failed to understand mine.
You come close to grasping this by accepting that a secretary to the board is part of the ‘company’ but not part of the ‘board’ (the governing body of a company). Here, ‘board’ is to ‘company’ as ‘government’ is to ‘the State’. But even a report prepared by a PA for a member of the board could hardly be described as a ‘company’ report, because, contrary to what you suggest, it is neither prepared ‘by’ the company (a individual secretary does not act in the name of the company) nor ‘for’ the company (an individual board member does not act in the name of the company either, unless perhaps he is the CEO and is acting in that capacity).
Thus, for example, if Congress (or perhaps even a congressional committee, if it is acting on the basis of powers delegated to it by Congress as a whole) were to commission and adopt a report, that would accurately be described as a ‘government’ report because the report has been procured and adopted by a body entitled to act as the ‘government’. What we have in the Whittier report is a document prepared by an individual for an unknown purpose. Even if it was prepared at the request of an individual member of Congress, however, that would be insufficient to truthfully call it a ‘government report’. I (speaking for myself only) would agree that the Whittier report could accurately be described as a 'government report' if it was procured and adopted by the US Congress. But I have no knowledge of that.
I do hope my position is finally clear to you now. -- Really Spooky 14:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Really Spooky to be clear, I understand everything you are saying but to have an "open mind" I'd have to disregard about a dozen class hours of university level courses and create a new definition of what a government agency is.
Authority to act or represent the government is not a prerequisite to be called an agency of the us federal government. If it's created , staffed, run, and funded by the government it is part of the government. (If the military isn't part of the government, what are they? They are run by the Executive branch of the government (President being commander in chief), and they are allotted funds and must be authorized to be deployed overseas for extended periods of time by Congress.) Frankly I don't expect you'll agree with me, but I have at least provided evidence backing my point from outside sources in the government (you do realize that .gov is the federal government's main domain, that and .mil).
To change my mind you're gonna need some proof explaining why these aren't all government agencies (civil service is the civilian arm of the government):
It should be pretty easy for you to gather some info from outside Wikipedia, from what you think the government is, to prove your point and explain why the federal civil service isn't part of the government. Anynobody 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If you really and truly do understand everything I have said above, then all you have just done is deliberately string together a succession of straw man arguments misrepresenting my position rather than addressing its merits. That is obviously not directed at constructive discussion with me but posturing for the benefit of other readers of this page. That being the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree and disengage. Best wishes, Really Spooky 00:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If you are correct you should be able to prove some/all of the groups listed are not part of the government. I've given you their websites, all you have to do is find where it says any of them are NOT part of the US government.
I expected an answer like this, the reason you say the list is a straw man argument is because you can't prove any of them ARE NOT part of the government. Therefore you label my list as a straw man argument to remove yourself from having to either prove your point or admit that you can't. Anynobody 01:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Except that is not what I seek to prove, nor does my point rest on whether FEMA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, EPA etc. are part of the government, as you are perfectly well aware. Best wishes, Really Spooky 03:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually it does Really Spooky since you fancy yourself to be knowledgeable about the us federal government, because you see a person unable to support their position is merely giving an opinion. Your opinion is that the CRS is not part of the government but instead part of the "civil service"(which is another name for government service as it says in the wikilink you've cited a few times.)
If you can't prove the divide between your concepts of government and "civil service" then you are asking me to accept your opinion. Anynobody 03:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, if you don't believe me browse through http://www.usa.gov for a while, here's a screenshot and an edited version to highlight some words and phrases associated with the government you can read about there: (These are previews, to actually read them please select the image you want to view) Anynobody 05:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
That is your opinion. In my opinion, your repeated demands that I disprove certain things that I neither disagree with nor rely on in support of my position are at best straw man and burden of proof fallacies, and at worst intellectually dishonest. For the record, I don’t seek to prove anything to you or to get you to accept my opinion at all. You are entitled to whatever opinion you like. I have only sought to explain my position to you, which you initially appeared to genuinely misunderstand. Since then, however, I have concluded that you are instead interested in sophistic debate; I am not. So as I said earlier, we’ll just have to agree to disagree and disengage. Best wishes, Really Spooky 09:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As I have repeatedly said, it is not a straw man argument and I'll explain why it isn't.
How to create a straw man:
1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
When have I misrepresented your position? You have said several times that civil services aren't part of the government, I haven't acted like your position has been refuted yet. I've been asking you to prove your position
2. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).
When have I quoted you out of context? I've merely asked you to prove your assertions that civil service isn't government service.
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
I definitely haven't done this because I've discussed this with several editors not assuming any one to be the "defender" of your position.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
I haven't done this either.
5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.
You have been making pretty simple arguments (gov't is not civil service for example), where have I oversimplified it?
Really Spooky by oversimplifying my argument and calling it a "straw man", it's actually you that are creating a straw man argument.
If you are correct one of the sites I listed should say the agency it represents is part of non-government civil service. Surely if the CRS isn't a government agency neither is the USGS, NOAA, or LOC all you need is to prove it. If you can't, it would be best to simply acknowledge you don't have any way to back your opinion rather than act like your views are indisputable fact. Anynobody 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bromley and Melton's book has a List of groups referred to as cults in government documents

Citation
Comment by Smee (talk · contribs)
  • Even David G. Bromley and J. Gordon Melton, two individuals that have been shown to report, shall we say, a bit more favorably towards some of the groups in question than others, even provide a list of these groups in their book, and the list is by alphabetical order, similar to how it is shown in User:Smee/Groups referred to as cult in government documents. Listed alphabetically by group, first, and then the document is cited. Smee 04:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cults and governments

Does anyone else think this article should be merged into Cults and governments? This article deals with an aspect regarding the subject of cults and governments and seems to overlap a bit. (Government reports about what they call cults.) Anynobody 05:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Then my question becomes why is that article succinctly titled cults and governments instead of groups referred to as cults and governments? Anynobody 06:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, that one is more of a paragraph style, this one is intended to be more of a listed style. Smee 06:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

I dunno, the whole "groups referred to as" sounds like artificial NPOV WP:OR. For clarification I made a section on the talk page of said policy. If a merge is not in order we really need to make these pages consistent, I of course think a shorter title like I proposed above would be better. (Otherwise we should get on the cults and governments talk page and lobby for the groups referred to as cults and governments title there). Anynobody 09:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another 3O

I've read through all the opinions here (and boy, did it take a long time). Rather than rehash the entire argument again, I will merely provide my initial impression from the title and answer the question that was placed on the 3O page: Does the title of the article Groups referred to as cults in government reports suggest an official report written and released on behalf a particular branch of a government, or does it imply any report published by a federal government agency?

If I were a reader coming to this page for information, my assumption would be that the "government reports" described in the title would be the official opinions (or, if you prefer, public policy) of the government listed. This would further imply that the government had some course of action in mind with these descriptions, and that they carried the weight of the entire bureaucracy behind them. I would not expect to discover opinions written by one or two individuals (or even a team) with no policy-making or -executing ability. Frankly, I would be annoyed to discover that such minor opinions had been included in a list that at least implies official government policy.

Thus, it is my opinion that only reports that carry the weight of the entire government - or at least one of its branches, as defined in the government's laws - be included in the listing. Snuppy 15:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Snuppy, I would like to thank you. Just the fact that you were willing to undertake all the reading says much for your value to wikipedia. As you found out, this has been a highly contentious issue and your opinion is greatly appreciated. Lsi john 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Now we are back where we started. Yes, of course some editors legitimately get Snuppy's impression. Others legitimately don't. Since there's no way to decide, that's why the majority polled for changing the title to Groups referred to as cults in government documents, and it's still the proper solution to stop this silly wrangling about what a "report" is. I was there when this article was created. No one had any idea of excluding any government reliable source based on semantics. Milo 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As another 3O let me make a few observations. The first problem seems to be the scope of the article itself. It is very broad and is forcing some editors to make a real stretch in defining or undefining what government is. From the perspective of most people, at least in my judgment, government refers to the whole of legislative judicial and executive. Together, they all serve to govern in one sense or another. Of course CRS is part of the government but it is true that its output does not dictate policy. Therein is the problem. If your article was something like Organizations identified as cults by the Government then you would be sourcing official documents where some agency actually studied and ID'd the groups as cults. But as it is, you article seems designed to simply mention those referenced somewhere, anywhere as a cult. My suggestion is to narrow the scope of the article and filter out those groups just mentioned in passing. Good luck! JodyB talk 15:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
"scope of the article itself. It is very broad" I'd say it's not broad enough since we can't agree on which narrow category of reports to include. Broaden the scope to "documents" and the problem goes away.
"Organizations identified as cults by the Government" I can already imagine how popular that title suggestion will be.
"filter out those groups just mentioned in passing." I hope JodyB will provide us with an air-tight reliable-source definition of "just mentioned in passing". Gee, is it really that easy to edit other articles? Milo 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the government?

Traditionally people have been given the impression that the government is a single entity with one (or a few) voice(s), for instance would anyone disagree with the assertion that the following links lead to government information?

Government reports/information on

The audience of these reports is or includes the general public and the speaker could generically be called "the government". This information was created by different parts of the government so it would be more accurate/specific to say the info comes from SAMHSA for the substance abuse reports, DOI for the rec info, NHTSA for the highway tips, and the GAO for Iraq misappropriation documents. They don't represent the views of the entire us government, for example NHTSA doesn't and isn't expected to have a view on scenic National Parks so www.recreation.gov doesn't speak for them.

The fact that a report or document has one author and/or isn't mean for the general public, does not mean it isn't a "government" report/document.

As an example look at this report
THE HUKBALAHAP INSURRECTION A Case Study of a Successful Anti-Insurgency Operation in the Philippines, 1946-1955 by Major Lawrence M. Greenberg

Not unlike a Congressional Research Service researcher, Major Greenberg used materials made available by the government to generate a report about the tactics of a successful anti-insurgency campaign in the Philippines. Even though he wrote it, the report/study is property of the US federal government. Does it represent the entire government's view of the insurrection in question? No it does not since other officers may feel differently, but that fact doesn't make it any less of a WP:V, WP:RS source.

To be a government report/document/study/whatever, the source in question does not have to come from a particular agency, represent authority, or speak for the government. It must simply originate from a part of it. This does not mean a government source is the final or only source. I noticed that CRS wrote a summary of the space shuttle Columbia disaster report written by NASA in 2003. If there was a dispute between that report and the NASA Columbia Accident Investigation Board report the obviously more reliable source is the of course the NASA report. Similar logic should be applied accordingly. Anynobody 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested that the Whittier report is not WP:V or WP:RS compliant, it has only been said that it does not belong in a list of government reports because it was prepared by an individual researcher and not by or on behalf of the government.
Many documents of the nature described above could undoubtedly be described as government reports because they were produced by departments exercising governmental authority delegated to them by the President (who speaks for the government in executive matters). The Congressional Research Service, however, comes under the legislative branch. In order for a report published by it to be truthfully described as a government report, the author would have to have produced it in the course of exercising some legislative authority, or at least in conjunction with the exercise of some legislative authority by Congress. An example of the latter would be if the Congress procured such a report and adopted it as its own. Otherwise it is no more than the work of an individual researcher. -- Really Spooky 20:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
To illustrate:
US Congress = the government in legislative matters
US judiciary = the government in judicial matters
US President = the government in executive matters
‘created, staffed & run by the government’ ≠ ‘the government’ (AMTRAK is not the government)
‘government employee’ ≠ ‘the government’ (a CIA janitor is not the government)
‘government agency’ (unless it exercises actual governmental authority) ≠ ‘the government’ (the Smithsonian Institution is not the government)
And so on. -- Really Spooky 21:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A CIA janitor is not the government, but because he/she works for the government a report written by said janitor about expenditures of cleaning supplies is a government report because it's written for the government by a government employee on a government computer. (What would you have us believe the hypothetical janitor's report is? His report? A private report? The work of a non-profit organization?) Is it usable here on Wikipedia? Of course not since there is no article which concerns itself with the usage of cleaning supplies at the CIA.

Congress is not the government, The President is not the government, and the Supreme Court is not the government. They are each part of it of course but any one branch does not "represent" the entire government. Since no one branch does speak for the whole of the government you would have to label any reports from them or their agencies as not "government" reports since they don't speak for the other two branches. In fact because of checks and balances no one branch speaks for the government which means the only government document we can use here is the Constitution of the United States since it set up the three branches, it's the only document that speaks for all three. (The Smithsonian is not a government agency, it's a government trust- there is a difference you can read about on their site. Here's a quote to summarize:

As a trust establishment of the United States, the Smithsonian Institution has a unique relationship to the United States Government, and works closely with the Executive Branch and Congress, as well as with various levels of state and local governments in carrying out its mission to increase and diffuse knowledge.

– the Smithsonian Institution

Anynobody 05:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to see that you accept that a CIA janitor is not the government, because earlier you were saying that working for the government means you are part of the government. So now you are beginning to understand the distinction I making.
In answer to your question, I would call a CIA janitor’s report on cleaning supplies a janitor’s report. I certainly wouldn’t call it a government report or even a CIA report.
Now I have some questions for you:
You say that if something is written ‘for the government by a government employee on a government computer’ that is sufficient to call it a ‘government report’.
  • If the hypothetical CIA janitor wrote his report on cults instead of cleaning supplies and placed it on the director’s desk whilst cleaning his office would you still say that was a ‘government report’ belonging on this page, even if he wrote it on a government computer during the night?
  • By the way, what difference does it make if something is written on a government computer or not? If it does, do you know whether the Whittier report was written on a government computer (or typewriter, since computers were apparently not yet in use then)?
It is not true that executive, legislative and judicial branches must speak with one united voice to be said to represent the government. Each branch acts in the name of the government in those areas where they are vested with governmental authority under the Constitution. Thus, when the Supreme Court hands down a judgment, even if it rules against another government body, it acts as and in the name of the US government. When Congress passes a law or a resolution, or holds investigatory hearings, even if it overrides a Presidential veto or impeaches the President, it acts as and in the name of the US government. When the President of the United States takes executive action, or represents the United States abroad, even if Congress may make disapproving noises about his foreign policy, he acts as and in the name of the US government. When Charles Whittier, Congressional Research Service employee, writes a paper about cults, he does not act as and in the name of the US government.
Finally, the Smithsonian Institution is most certainly a government agency, as the websites of the President [2] and the Smithsonian [3] itself make very clear, as well as numerous other websites; here are just a few [4] [5][6][7][8].
By the way, AMTRAK and the postal service are government agencies too. -- Really Spooky 08:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, saying what you wouldn't call it is not saying what you would which of course is what I wanted an answer to. I also have to say, for someone so apt to cry "straw man" or allege other rhetorical fallacies you use them quite often. You also apparently didn't read, or understand the concept of common sense when government sources disagree that I mentioned in my argument.

I noticed that CRS wrote a summary of the space shuttle Columbia disaster report written by NASA in 2003. If there was a dispute between that report and the NASA Columbia Accident Investigation Board report the obviously more reliable source is the of course the NASA report. Similar logic should be applied accordingly.

– Anynobody 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If one applies common sense to your question, Roger Wilco's report on cults would be a government report of little to no reliability but also without copyright concerns.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about AMTRAK and the USPS, but I'd agree with your assertion that they are government agencies. AMTRAK and the USPS unlike private companies must respond to FOIA requests making them indeed part of the government. Try submitting a FOIA request to Microsoft, General Motors, or Martha Stewart Living and see how far you get. Anynobody 09:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. The ‘unanswered’ question. Post of Anynobody at 09:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC): “You didn’t answer my question, saying what you wouldn’t call it is not saying what you would which of course is what I wanted an answer to.”
Post of Really Spooky immediately prior at 08:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC): “In answer to your question, I would call a CIA janitor’s report on cleaning supplies a janitor’s report.” (one might alternatively call it a CIA janitor's report).
  1. Comment about weight of CRS reports. I did read your comment. I just don’t see its relevance to what we are talking about. How does your admission that a hypothetical NASA report would carry more weight than a CRS summary about the same event go establish that the Whittier paper or any other paper published by the CRS is a ‘government report’?
  2. Roger Wilco. Huh? What is that all about?
  3. Smithsonian, AMTRAK, postal service et al. No, I’m not being sarcastic. I’m simply pointing these out as examples of the proposition that ‘government agency’ (unless it exercises actual governmental authority) ≠ ‘the government’.
  4. FOIA requests. There you go again. What point are you trying to make by asserting that the FOIA applies to AMTRAK or the postal service (if that is indeed true)? Since we both agree that those are government agencies (surprisingly), I don’t see how that establishes anything given that my point is ‘government agency’ (unless it exercises actual governmental authority) ≠ ‘the government’. Do you now acknowledge that the Smithsonian Institution is also a government agency, after I have provided you with White House and Smithosonian links clearly demonstrating this is so?
The fundamental flaw that continues to permeate all your comments is that you perceive virtually any manner of association with the government (whether it be employed by, created by, staffed by, owned by, operated by, obligated to release information under the FOIA by etc.) as equal to the government itself. My point is that the government is those persons and/or bodies of persons which have the administrative authority to govern. In a company it is called the board of directors, in a church it is usually called a council or synod, when we speak of a State we call it the government. Employees or bodies within or operated by the government are not, and do not speak in the name of, the government. They act in their own individual capacity as employee, private individual or organisation (depending on what they are doing and on what authority), unless of course they are carrying out some task in the course of public administration of the country, in which case they can truthfully be said to be acting as the government.
Imagine Mr. Charles Whittier visiting, say, the United Nations or the European Commission in Brussels and saying he comes on behalf of the US government. Unless he had had been authorised to do so by some governmental authority, nobody would give him the time of day, and any protest asserting that as a researcher in the CRS he is ‘part of the government’ would get him absolutely nowhere. -- Really Spooky 10:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

To tackle your analogy first, representing the US government in negotiations or as an ambassador is not even close to a valid comparison between ACTING on behalf of and being the PROPERTY of the government. As I have said repeatedly, it's an ownership/copyright issue and accuracy/reliability is determined on a case by case basis depending on where in the government it originated. The CIA janitor's report would not be a solid foundation to base a claim on but it won't get you sued for copyright infringement. Citing the CRS report on the Columbia Accident Investigation Board would not be the best approach when the NASA report is available just as readily.

If Congress held hearings and determined that a suborbital gremlin monster chewed a hole in Columbia's port wing are you saying that said report would have a place with the NASA report just because Congress is a body of authority?

My point is that the government is those persons and/or bodies of persons which have the administrative authority to govern.

– Really Spooky 10:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody 08:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There you go again with your 'any association with government' = 'government' arguments. Just because a report is property of the government doesn't mean it is a government report. Is Mein Kampf a government source just because the Library of Congress owns it? [9]
What is your basis for saying that the Congressional Research Service owns the copyright to the Whittier report? If anyone owns the copyright it is Charles Whittier.
I am glad to see you are finally grasping my point, however. In response to your question, if Congress held hearings and determined that a suborbital gremlin monster chewed a hole in Columbia's port wing that would be a government report. An absolutely ridiculous government report, and certainly less believable than the NASA report, but a government report nonetheless. -- Really Spooky 09:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The majority were FOR the name change to "documents"

  • See newly archived section: Talk:Groups_referred_to_as_cults_in_government_reports/Archive_1#Name_change_-_second_vote.
  • Again, I think it is best to change the name of this article to List of groups referred to as cult in government documents, and model it after User:Smee/Groups referred to as cult in government documents.
  • The very fact that David G. Bromley and J. Gordon Melton also listed the groups like this in their book, Cults, Religion, and Violence, suggests that researchers from the camp, ahem, more supportive of these groups, is not opposed to listing them like this, in sources more reputable than Wikipedia, like secondary sourced books. Smee 23:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
You are right about the numbers, Smee, but as near as I can tell it was a 'bare' poll with no arguments or reasons given for the proposed name change at all (although opponents of the proposal did give their reasons). Until we hear some discussion of the purpose of the proposal and why it is a good idea, I think changing the name would be premature and contrary to WP:POLL, particularly since some editors (including myself) view it as a trojan horse to later justify putting the Whittier report on the list (although personally I don't think the proposed name change makes any difference to that issue).
If what you really want to propose is something that will include the Whittier report and others like it, IMHO it would be best to state that up front and perhaps we can find some alternative consensus (I certainly don't think anyone argues that the Whittier report does not meet WP:RS or that it doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia). For example perhaps the word 'government' could be simply removed from the title (not one I would favour, but it's an option). Or a separate article entitled "List of research papers on cults" could be created, I'm sure there are plenty of possibilities for consensus.
As to your second proposal (name change and page structure are different things), my comments are here so I won't repeat them. I would simply add that just because someone has done something in a book doesn't mean it is appropriate in an encyclopedia, regardless of whether the authors are anti-cult, cult apologist or neutral. I presume those indices are presented in the context of an entire chapter or chapters on the subject, whereas you propose to remove all context explaining the reports from the page. -- Really Spooky 12:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Noted, and thank you for your polite comments. Comments from anyone else on my above statements? Smee 07:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Criteria for inclusion

Inclusion is based on a single reference:

  1. as a "cult" directly in North American English, a "sect" in British English or any equivalent foreign-language word;
  2. as a group in that organizations and sets of individual practitioners, including those named by their technical practice of cults, qualify as groups;
  3. as such within the last 50 years;
  4. as named by reliable sources to have not existed independently prior to 1920 in its substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices;
  5. as not qualifying as a personality cult (heads of state), fan-cult of popular culture, or group that doesn't have an actual following (fictional or self-nominated groups).

This looks ok to me. A quick question on number 2 though; a hypothetical (and rather unlikely) "cult" made up of mostly individual practitioners who do not meet often but adhere to the teachings of a cult are a group? Anynobody 07:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My primary objection to this criteria box (which comes from List of groups referred to as cults) is that it is (a) unnecessary and (b) undesirable in the context of this article.
It is unnecessary because its function at LOGRTAC is not applicable here. Given the way the word 'cult' is indiscriminately bandied about in the media, were there no inclusion criteria LOGRTAC would include things like cheddar cheese (as one editor recently pointed out). There is no risk of that here, however.
It is undesirable here because the government lists should not be dissected and presented selectively. It is one thing to delimit the scope of an article's subject-matter, it is quite another thing to censor the sources. -- Really Spooky 07:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)