Talk:Lucis Trust

message: I would suggest that the references 1-6 are unreliable.  They seem to be works of conspiracy theory.  For the sake of the credibility of the article, perhaps an outside source could be found to validate this information?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.113.73 (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

message: "Some people belonging to it have included Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller"
I have heard these, and other well known names, connected with the Lucis Trust; but I have move this to the talk page because there should be sourcing to include it in the article. Kwork 11:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that it is a cult. Would some one further this please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling something a cult is a value judgment; it is POV. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be appropriate to call it a cult but the extension of your argument is that nothing should be called a cult on wikipedia because it is a value judgment. I have not dug into this organization but it seems that they work to further some belief system. It is not necessarily enough to call it a cult for that reason. If high profile individuals were part of this organization, is it known what they did there? Esperion (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Kissinger and Rockefeller

message: It would be interesting if any of the editors were able to find a correlation between the existence of the Lucis Trust and the widespread support for abortion legislation within the United Nations. ADM (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the hell not?  Margaret Sanger was a student of Madame Blavatsky.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.104.40 (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: United Nations and abortion

message: Given this body's frequent appearance in conspiracy theories, this should at least get a mention.--213.104.39.61 (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracies 

message: Is the link in the article a good source or is it related too closely to the article? Conspirasee1 (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ABOUTSELF. Under the conditions listed there, we can use information that organizations and individuals publish about themselves. This is an exception to the usual reliable source rules. The article needs additional sources as well.--Srleffler (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

text: I changed the cleanup tag to "refimprove" since the bigger problem with this article is that the bulk of the material is not supported by any citations, rather than that there is overuse of citations to Lucis' website.--Srleffler (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source or no? 

message: I reverted today's edits, which appear to be an attempt to censor the article. Responding to the edit comments:
*Lucis Publishing Company is in bold because this article is the one that covers that term, and the term redirects here.
*Lucifer Publishing Company is in bold for the same reason. The redirect was missing. I have created it.
*Heartcentre777's third edit damaged the reference by removing the "work=" and "accessdate=" parameters.
*The quote was added to the reference yesterday in response to Heartcentre777's complaint that the source did not say what the article claimed it says. Per WP:V: "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." In this case, adding the quote to the reference documents the information in case other editors have the same concern, and preserves it in case the website's contents change in the future. 
*The statement Heartcentre777 removed is not "editorilizing" [sic], redundant, nor original research. It is a paraphrase of what the organization has themselves said. No opinion is expressed.
Given today's edits, I do have to wonder whether Heartcentre777 has a conflict of interest in regard to this article. I advise him or her to be aware of our conflict of interest guideline (linked).--Srleffler (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship.