Talk:Recovery from Cults

message: I do not think that this is a notable book. VFD would be better or change it into a general article "Recovery from cults". Andries 06:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact alone that is such a widespread resource by authorities on the subject, plus the list of accredited contributors, makes it worthy of keeping.  I'll probably say something similar on the AFD page.  Yours, Smeelgova 14:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, may be, I cannot say that I particularly like the book, though I find it interesting. I do not want to do much work on this article and have my work removed by a successful afd. Andries 14:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  A very interesting tactic, create an article and then AFD it yourself to test notability... Smeelgova 14:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that my tactic is very much appreciated because it creates extra adminstrative work, but I think I have good reason to follow this tactic. I do not like to spent time for nothing. Andries 14:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Having spent several hundred dollars looking for material on CULT RECOVERY I can honestly say this book is the best one, most academic, functional and practical. Please see the link which will show you just how many credible individuals put in their expertise to make this book.  There isn't another book out there with such a think tank that came together with the intent to help on a global level. Please see all the links in webpage so you can judge for yourself.
Your comments are most welcome.LogicUser 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Don't Move/Merge

message: It's important to note that Wikipedia is not a book reviewer.  It does not make value judgements about what certain books are good for, though it may report what other people have to say.  I would expect to see such reports in the "Book Reviews" section, but I have no idea what the text that's there has to do with this book. -- Beland 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: user:Beland wrote that the following paragraph misses context and is hence incomprehensible. I cannot understand how anyone cannot understand it and what context should be provided. Please explain.
::"Paul R. Martin Ph. D., the director of the only American recovery center for ex-cultists wrote in Chapter 10 Post-Cult Recovery: Assessment Rehabilitation, the following,
::"In attempting to understand what has happened to the ex-cultist, it is often helpful to employ the victim, or trauma, model. According to this model, victimization and the resultant distress are due to the shattering of three basic assumptions held about the world and the self. These assumptions are: "the belief in personal invulnerability, the perception of the world as meaningful, and the perception of oneself as positive" (Janoff-Bulma, 1985, p. 15). The ex-cultist has been traumatized, deceived, conned, used and often emotionally, physically, sexually, and mentally abused while serving the group and/or the leader. Like other trauma victims (for example, of criminal acts, rape, and serious illness), former cultists often reexperience the painful memories of their group involvement. They also lose interest in the outside world, feel detached from society, and may show limited emotions (Janoff-Bulman, 1985, pp.16,17).""
Andries 09:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a quote from the book. Andries 13:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not the only one to quote exactly this part of the book. The same quote was independently mentioned in the book edited by David G. Bromley Politics of religious apostasy. I think this was in the article by Stuart Wright. Andries 14:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually think at this point the article would do fine with or without the quote, perhaps an external link or briefer reference to it would be okay, now that the overall syntax of the article has been cleaned up a little more.  Smeelgova 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose to removing this quote. It is also referred to in post cult trauma. Andries 14:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, different essays by different contributors who all agree that cults are harmful. I think that a list of contributors and the corresponding chapters that they wrote is at least as important and takes far less time. Andries 14:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the missing context?

message: I want to do more work on the article but I want to this only after I am sure that this article will not be deleted. Andries 14:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to keep something from being deleted is to turn it into a good NPOV article.  I wouldn't worry about it being nominated for deletion again anytime soon, especially since you've noted here that you are working on improving the article.  Just keep in mind that viewpoints of those who disagree with the book's contents should be reflected in the article. -- Beland 14:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Stuart Wright disagrees with the stance of the articles in the book, but the quote that he mentioned too corresponds nearly perfectly with my personal experience. Apart from that I do not know any negative reviews. Andries 14:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I only want to do the work of turning it into a good NPOV article after I am sure that it survives AFD, so that is why I submitted the article again for AFD. Andries 14:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I will re-submit this book for AFD

message: Please don't delete this as it is too valuable to post cult members and those affected from contact with such cults/sects/NRMs. I say turn it into a Recovery from cults article if you must, but keep the information there.  Thanks/PEACE TalkAbout 18:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TalkAbout, you can vote here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Recovery_from_Cults_%28book%29 Andries 18:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't Delete! Turn it into an article about Recovery from Cults with a section for the BOOK

message: *Please elaborate on your advertisement tag, and your suggestions will be duly taken into account.  Yours, Smeelgova 20:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sounds good, will implement and see what it looks like.  By the way, thanks for the input, and phrased in such a nice manner too.  Yours, Smeelgova 20:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement tag

message: The intro says that the book is premised on the "mind control model" but the actual quote from the book talks about the "victim, or trauma, model".  The claim in the intro is unreferenced, so perhaps it is mistaken, or the truth is more complex than the article's current explanation. -- Beland 20:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the authors treat it. User:Andries/Recovery_from_Cults_%28book%29 Andries 20:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean to say that some of the authors talk about "mind control"?  That doesn't really clear up my confusion.  Perhaps the problem is merely one of phrasing.  The mind control article discusses multiple models of mind control; the intro to this article implies that there is a single universally recognized model.  Perhaps the intro should simply say that the book discusses mind control techniques that cults allegedly use. -- Beland 20:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to re-read the book to see to what extent the book is premised on the mind control theory. It was the original creator user:Ed Poor of the article who wrote this and I was never very happy with it. Andries 20:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Mind control in this sense is I think a strong form of influence acquired and maintained by manipulation and resistant to evidence of being wrong, but again I have to re-read the book. Andries 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To be fair of course, resistant to evidence of being wrong is not exactly confined to people in cults. :) Andries 20:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model 

message: I agree with Beland. Wikipedia is not Amazon.com. If you want to know just what a book contains, when it was published, etc. go to Amazon or a similar site. If a book is prominent enough to have an article in WP, we need to then provide some context, present the controversy the book raised if any, and provide counterpoints to the author's views, if held by notable authors. Otherwise these type of articles are just advertisement. A book, is a product, and in articles about products we do not onkly describe the product, but we also describe what reliable sources say about the product. See Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) that talks about product advertisement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Ed Poor created this non-notable book entry. Andries 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not understand what your argument is. If you believe that it should be deleted, you are wlcome to vote delete at the AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am only having a dispute with the lack of edits on this article by Ed Poor who created this article but failed to make it reasonable, let alone good article. Andries 23:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is a review on a pay site probably a critical review because I know the stance of the reviewer, Saliba. Andries 17:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not Amazon.com

message: Langone is the director of the the organization that published the book, is that not self-publishing? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Norton, it is in the article. Andries 17:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Strange.... Before I started editing, the article said that the AFF was the publisher. see diff ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was contradiction in the article. The publisher is Norton, not the AFF. Andries 17:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published? 

message: Others have highlighted this particular quote from the book too i.e. Stuart Wright in the book Politics of religious apostasy edited by David G. Bromley. Andries 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wich one of quotes? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see only one quote from the book. From chapter 10 by Paul Martin. Andries 20:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I do not see anything wrong with the quote

message: * Shuppe, Anson and Darrel, Susan, The Attempted Transformation of a Deviant Occupation into a Therapy: Deprogramming Seeks a New Identity, A paper presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the SSSR/RRA, Norfolk, VA, October 2003. Available online
Andries 20:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the review of the book or mentioning of the book? I cannot find it

message: As in WP:EL external links that discuss the subject of an article, and provide readers with alternative viewpoints, providing that these links are reliable sources, are welcome. Why the deletion? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, the link does not mention the book so it is off-topic. The subject of this article is this book. May be I am sometimes a sloppy reader, but I ask myself if you are worse than I. I sincerely cannot understand your edits and the questions on this talk page unless I assume that you do not take the time to read it well. Andries 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in the EL, refers to Langone and his theories. It does not have to be specific to the book itself. I would suggest that you place an RfC, as I believe that common sense dictates that such external links are useful additions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article may be fine for the article Michael Langone but here it is off-topic. Andries 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Following Jossi's flawed "common sense" line of reasoning we could insert many external links about Margaret Singer, Janja Lalich etc. Let us stick to the subject i.e. this book. Andries 21:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was not aware of this policy, however in that case we could add a ton more relevant links... Smeelgova 21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:EL]] 

message: *If someone could find a more critical review from a reputable source and add a quote from it to this article, that would be appreciated.  Yours, Smeelgova 08:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical review

message: The book is a one-sided attack on alleged "manipulation" by "cults". It ignores the similarity between the unethical practices it attributes cults and the unethical practices actually conceded by deprogrammers. --Uncle Ed 20:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unethical manipulation

message: It seems to me that one of the quotes cited on the article is so long, it may be a copyright violation issue. SSS108 talk-email 05:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: This article is based solely on primary sources (the book itself), and as such it is not compliant with content policies. In order to be compliant, third party sources (critiques, reviews, etc) need to be used. I have tagged the article with the appropriate tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add info from third party sources.  Smeelgova 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed.  I have added info from 2 different, peer-reviewed journals.  I have strived to included both critical info, and factual statements in NPOV language.  Smeelgova 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-compliant 

message: :Image:Recovery from cults book cover AFF.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Recovery from cults book cover AFF.jpg

message: Substituted at 04:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment