Talk:Anti-cult movement/Archive 1

message: In Taxonomy, it says: ..."
Religious and secular
Two main types of opposition to cults are differentiated:
    * Religious opposition is related to theological issues. Such individuals and groups are collectively called the Christian countercult movement
"...
That is far from NPOV if, as it seems to be, it implies or assumes that the term "Religious" somehow implicitly means or implies "Christian". Surely it should say "Christian opposition is related to theological issues" rather than "Religious opposition is related to theological issues" since it goes on to label the adherents of the position as Christian ???
Knotwork 13:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion automatically means Christian???

message: The following sentence is misleading:
:the brief did not characterize the theory of brainwashing as disproven or as unscientific (as some comentators assert) -- only as not scientifically proven
There are three options for describing a scientific theory:
#proven to be true
#indeterminate
#proven to be false
Theories which are 91) "proven to be true" become part of science, i.e., scientists pretty much stop questioning it, and courts consider it to be reliable.
Theories which are either (2) indeterminate or (3) "proven to be false" are not considered part of science. 
What happened with Singer is that she claimed mind control was part of science (i.e., #1, proven to be true). The APA has said that it is "not part of science", which leaves two possibilities: (2) that it's indeterminate or (3) that it has been proven false. 
Anti-cult groups are correct in saying that the APA didn't label mind control false (i.e., #3). But if they are using the excluded middle fallacy to imply that "not proven false" means it "must be true" then that's the misleading part.
The article text I quoted above makes two tangled-up assertions, which I untangle here:
* that the brief did not characterize the theory of brainwashing as "disproven" but as "not scientifically proven"
* that the brief did not characterize the theory of brainwashing as unscientific
The first assertion is correct. The secord assertion is false (or at best, misleading).
It hinges on the meaning of the word "unscientific". It seems to deny that APA had contradicted Singer's claim that her mind control was (a) scientific and therefore (b) admissible as expert testimony in court. However, Singer herself obviously did not take it that way. In fact, she sued the APA (at least once), because their statement had the effect of getting courts to believe that her theory was not scientific or proven or part of science, and she lost money because she couldn't get anyone to pay her to give expert testimony any more.
This needs to be clarified. I have presented this analysis, but I don't know how to word it in the text. Can anyone help me here? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:36, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
::We have been throught this discussion already and Antaeus, (as far as I know) is not well and not engaged much these days. My suggestion would be NOT to speculate and just quote from the amicus curiae brief. That will be NPOV. Speculation and interpretation is not. --Zappaz 23:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: may be mind control can be classified as a redundant concept, i.e. unnecessary to explain cults when more common, generally accept explanations still do the job..  Andries 16:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Same music, different words, Andries. Same as "deprogramming" and "exit counseling". -- Zappaz 23:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific status of mind control theories

message: # Everything has a history. this article too should start with the history. Yes, the history was somewhat focused on the ACM. Please make additions with other forms thanks.  Andries 19:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Andries, no. The whole controversy about apostate testimony is around their credibility. --Zappaz 21:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zappaz' reverts

message: Hello Andries. If you want to write about the History of opposition to new religions, please do not replicate the text from Anti-cult movement, as this article is of wider scope. Thanks. --Zappaz 19:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Every subject has a history, please help to add more if you think that it is incomplete. Andries 19:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that this article was of wider scope, and if you keep adding stuff from Anti-cult movement, we should then consider merging both articles. --Zappaz 21:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only trying to provide a summary here. Not copying the complete history. Andries 21:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: But I think that every subject has a history and should have the history described, as a summary of other articles' history, such as e.g. done in the articles for the different countries. I am not trying to copy the history of the anti-cult movement, but only providing a summary here. Andries 21:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.Then let's keep it to historical facts. --Zappaz 23:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: There is no need to pre-empt the excellent discourse presented in the article with a summary that does not do honors to it and adds unecessary spin. Thanks. --Zappaz 23:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Please provide references for this, otherwise remove it. Thanks. --Zappaz 21:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eileen Barker (2) 

message: There are several ways to classify opposition against cults - the least encyclopedical is, to throw them together as "anti-cult activists". So I tried here to neutralize this by sorting them according to provenience - this is NPOV, as it's just information about "how come" without evaluating how moral or immoral or whatever this is.  --Irmgard 22:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: I removed the cult apologist section on her, it does not fit here, because this classification of her (in contrary to Hadden's) is really NPOV - the rest of her work should not be debated here. I added some samples to her groups. --Irmgard 22:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eileen Barker (3) 

message: Deleted several paras in section scholars which are also contained in Apostasy and Cult apologist and added instead a condensed statement regarding apostates in the Former Members section. --Irmgard 20:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholars and former members 

message: The use of Al Quaeda and the editorializing of the intro using this terrorist organization as an example of "cult", is not appropriate, original research and contentious POV. 
:Also, the terrorist waves due to extremist organisations based on cults, such as Al Quaeda, has renewed the awareness about the - not only individual - but also societal and political dangers that some cults entails.
Text above removed.
--ZappaZ  22:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not original research - Al Quaeda has been called a cult by BBC 1991 , FactNET  , John Curtis , and som3 thousand sites more. Please insert the text again. --Irmgard 23:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Al Quaeda was referred to as a cult, does not make it right to editorialize. If you want to add the text you can say: Al Quaeda has been called a cult by BBC 1991, John Curtis and FACTNet. But that's it. --ZappaZ  04:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we quote the 236 000 google references stating that al queda is a cult? A blatant fact for anybody who don't live in outer space. Do you need references to call a rain a rain? Will you call that original research? How can denial of reality reach such a point? --Pgreenfinch 06:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not reading my argument. Yes, Al Quaeda was referred to as a cult. That is a fact. But what you wrote is editorial material and original research. As I said, you can add to the article text that says that Al Quaeda was called a cult by sources XYZ and ZWT. That's it. Alternatively, find a notable scholar that thinks like you and then attribute it. No one is interested in reading what wikipediand Pgreenfinch thinks about cults and Al Quaeda. Deleted. --ZappaZ  15:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: You keep ignorning my argument. You are welcome to say that Al Quaeda was refered to as a cult, but you are not welcome to editorialize and add your own conclusions or inferences. That is original research, Deleted, yet again. --ZappaZ  16:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I think or you think has nothing to do with that, the sources are 260 000 and I didn't bring anything original. This is not a competition of quotations nor a doctorate thesis, this is the everyday real world. The only thing you can do is adapt the wording if there is something pov I didn't see. As you say, that's it. You are not the master of elegances in WP, just a participant like any other. So please, stop the red tape attempts and accept realities --Pgreenfinch 16:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Quaeda 

message: Might be of interest: http://www.rickross.com/reference/alqaeda/alqaeda19.html
Not that it adds something to what everybody knows but that some persist to censor. --Pgreenfinch 17:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This asserts nothing relevant about al-Qaeda; if you wish to include Hassan al-Sabbah, this would be a relevant, albeit tertiary, source. Septentrionalis 21:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For source addicts 

message: If I was a professor with an ax to grind, I could write something like the following:
Cult apologists usually have some sort of awful hidden secret that causes them to exist in a constant state of denial, and then they find it easy to extend this loud willing ignorance to others in exchange for rewards.  Some cult apologists are repressed homosexuals, and their need to deny their own sexual shame causes them to be quite eager to cover up the sexual exploitation committed by cult leaders.  Other cult apologists are slaves to the bottle or street drugs, and their reward for turning a blind eye to what they see is money to support their expensive habits...
Of course, if I did that, I would be quite rightfully challenged and criticized.  Where is my proof? they would say.  Where is my research backing up my words?  Who am I referring to when I talk about cult apologists who are repressed homosexuals, who have drug or drinking problems, and can I substantiate any of those allegations?
Of course, what I could do instead would be to create a "taxonomy".  This would just be a simple classification system:
*A simple taxonomy of cult apologists:
**Repressed homosexuals
***Very good at overlooking sexual indiscretions
***Often get the pick of cult followers
**Druggies and drunkards
***Favor cults with connections overseas who can score good hashish
***...
If anyone challenged me or criticized me, I would simply treat them as if they were mad.  This is a taxonomy, I would explain condescendingly.  I'm simply differentiating between different kinds of cult apologists.  The fact that I've created categories whose identifying factor happens to be a very serious accusation, and that the existence of the category invites the reader to commit the existential fallacy and infer that the category must at some point been verified to contain at least some members -- why should this matter to me?
Now let's look at the late Professor Hadden's "taxonomy":
:4. Entrepreneurial opposition
:#*Individuals who take up a cause for personal gain.
:#*Alliance or coalition to promote their agenda is ad hoc.
:#*Broadcasters and journalists leading examples.
:#*A few 'entrepreneurs' have made careers by creating organized opposition.
Hmmm, let's see...  taking up a cause for personal gain, making careers by creating organized opposition...  fairly serious accusations, aren't they? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your point? Hadden was who he was, and he said what he said. We are only reporting on a sociologist's POV. He had and has plenty of critics that say pretty bad things about him. That is also reported on Hadden's article. We are done our job to report these protagonists POV. Give it a rest. --ZappaZ  02:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy and the existential fallacy 

message: I am attempting to have short bios of all scholars mentioned in this and other related articles. Please help complete that work. Bios done so far:
*Benjamin Zablocki
*Lonnie D. Kliever
*Benjamin Beith-Hallahmi
*Jeffrey K. Hadden
*Douglas E. Cowan
I don't want to see any red in the article :) --ZappaZ  05:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies of protagonists 

message: As some phenomena seems to happen again, including some cultist forgetting all sense of ridicule reverting its own text twice, wondering under what outside influence or orders, it makes me think of the following theoretical case:
Let us suppose some cult propagandists want to beat the system.
Of course they would not dare, that would be very cheap;-)) 
But if we follow that hypothesis, they might do it this way:
* 1) remove a perfectly true and legitimate text that gives account of the notorious worries in the general population and in media about the extreme danger of some cults, something supported  by 236 000 google occurences. Just common knowledge to sum it up.
* 2) each time it is reinstated, cancel it again, and use some redtape about sourcing, npov, original work, english wording, not enough salt or too much pepper, or whatever.
* 3) Here is the most beautiful trick, do it in a concerted way between two propagandists, so that none do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours.
*4) Even more beautiful, complain that it is the censored author who breaks WP rules. This is playing on redtape at its best. Absolutely splendid, although showing a bit of kindergarden attitude, something often found in cult proselytism.
Obvioulsy, all this is perfectly theorical, just a hypothetical case study. Nobody and no organisation would ever use that pitiful trick in real life. It would show that truth embarass them. --Pgreenfinch 08:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your cynicism is not welcome. You are either serious in editing WP or not. Spin, editorializing and advocacy is not the domain of WP. Use your own blog or website to state your opinions. Thanks. --ZappaZ  18:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at that, Zappaz talking about cynicism ;-) --Pgreenfinch 18:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How they can get away with it 

message: It seems to me that the section titled "Anti-Scientologists claiming restriction of free speech" is more about religioustolerance.org than about scientology. Needs rephrasing urgently. -- AlexR 18:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete rewording, no quotations and no discussion of reliability of 3rd sources. Sources for the text are besides religioustolerance.org and the Brinkema-memorandum the web pages of the people mentioned and Scientology versus The Internet --Irmgard 20:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed some of the editorializing, and kept one citation from Ontario consultants that is relevant. --ZappaZ  21:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No previous contact is relevant in this case and it is not editorializing. References are, e.g. http://www.freedomofmind.com/stevehassan/presskit/articles/mallia3.htm Irmgard 06:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you need to attribute it, otherwise is stating a POV as a fact and that is not NPOV. --ZappaZ  15:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV-section

message: I move the section together so the mutual allegations and mud slinging can be put in parallel - the two sides really do pay each other back in the same coin.
Some "allegations" of the opposition I moved to the top, because they are uncontested distinctives of the cult opposition.
Moved some details to "cult apologist" - no need to repeat it here. Also moved organizations to cult apologist and religious studies respectively.
Deleted Cowan-quote - already fully contained in cult apologist
Part should be deleted: an apology is the actual defense of a POV, not what the opponents say it was. Also much of it is a repetition of the allegations listed before.
:Critics of the anti-cult movement include J. Gordon Melton, the sociologist David G. Bromley, and other scholars associated with the :Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR). Massimo Introvigne from the CESNUR, attribute collectively to the anti-cult movement the following apology:
:* We favor religious freedom, but "cults and "sects" are not religions. 
:* When pressed to define what is a cult and what is a religion, anti-cultists reply:People join a religion voluntarily, but they are induced to join a cult through psychological manipulation (ie."brainwashing"). 
:*When confronted with skepticism from scholars who have refuted the accusations of "brainwashing" and psychological manipulation, the anti-cultists state that:
:** Scholars can't be trusted. 
:** The way to determine if a group is a cult is to ask the people who have left the organization (ex-followers or apostates). 
:*When challenged that studies have shown that many more people who leave such groups state that they were not manipulated as those who state they were and that the majority of those who leave these organizations are indifferent, the anti-cultists then assure legislators that there are organizations (anti-cult organizations) who specialize in these matters and they can help determine who are reliable witnesses (referring to those apostates who are working with them).
--Irmgard 21:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Irmagard, but I disagree with all your edits above. I am reverting. If you want, please do one edit at the time and let's discuss one by one. Thanks for your patience. --ZappaZ  03:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, ZappaZ, "I disagree" is just a statement of your personal opinion and is neither a reason to revert nor a valid argument in an objective discussion. I have given my reasons above - where you have substantial counter-arguments, please voice them and we can search for a compromise. --Irmgard 12:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just asking that you do one edit at a time, so we have a chance to discuss each edit. Me and other editors have put an enormous effort on this article, so I kindly request that you slow down with major changes, deletions and moves of text from one article to another without seeking consensus first. I will give you the opportunity to revert your own edits and do one at a time, discuss, agree, and move on to the next one. Thanks. --ZappaZ  20:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it work for editors who disagree with the edits to point out what they disagree with? I don't see any specific problems being raised with Irmgard's work. -Willmcw 20:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put some work in this article, too, and also some work in the last edit. As I have given reasons for my changes, they can be discussed one by one, as desired. --Irmgard 21:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No Irmgard, I disagree with you yet again, this time on process. If this is your attitude: "I will change/delete/move any text I want and then it is up to others to tell me why these are not OK", then you are on your own. I have no interest in edit wars. Get your edits done and then in a month or so I will come and make my edits the way I see this article needs to be and then you will need to provide reasons why these are not OK, same as you are doing now.  The alternative is, that you make one edite at a time, discuss it with me and other editors involved, and so on. The choice is yours. Let me know. --ZappaZ  00:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, there is on pro and one con regarding my changes - so even a revert would satisfy only 50% of opinions voiced --Irmgard 09:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Following Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I assume the above is not a threat, though it is somewhat sounding like one. --Irmgard 16:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-cult movement and cult apologists 

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: The single-handed recent move by Fossa of Opposition to cults and new religious movements to Anti-cult movement has made quite some prior discussions unaccessible (e.g. about combining both articles and  under which lemma this should be done) also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to cults and new religious movements has been ignored. I suggest it should be reverted and the former discussions restored as far as possible. Irmgard 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the article, because the euphemism is not known outside wikipedia. It has been invented by anti-cult activists, who for some reason do not like to appear as a collective entity. Nevertheless, the existence of a anti-cult movement is an established fact, which no serious scholar, not even Zablocki denies.--Fossa 22:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be two article and there should be two articles because 1. opposition to cults and new religious movements is much broader than the anti-cult movement that is defined by Bromley as the groups that believe in Brainwashing 2. the existence of the anti-cult movement is undisputed. (I agree with Fossa about this) Irmgard merged the two articles and I did not agree with the merge but I have to admit that I am to blame too because I did not protest to the merge. Andries 22:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Clearly opposition to cults and new religious movements is not a collective entity and it should not be treated as such. Andries 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Fossa, you have no right to override a failed afd. Re-submit it to afd if you want. Andries 22:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Fossa seems to be under the strange misconception that every article title must refer to an entity, rather than to a topic.  That's the only sense I can make out of his obscure reference to "the euphemism"; it's as if he thinks that someone is trying to say that there's an entity euphemistically called "opposition to cults and new religious movements", rather than that this is the article about the topic of opposition to cults and new religious movements. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-handed article move 

message: The definition is completely wrong. Bromley defined the anti-cult movement as the amalgam of groups that believe in brainwashing. I oppose merging the two articles, because there are more sources of opposition to cults and new religious movements than the anti-cult movement. Andries 22:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we two bad and factually inaccurate articles. Please help to clean up the mess. Thanks. Andries 22:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which article by Bromley are you referring to? Unfortunately, all social scientific concepts vary by author and over time. I cannot imagine that Bromley used such an unsociological definition at any time. --Fossa 22:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bromley and Anson Shupe, Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare. Boston: Beacon Press, 1981 You can read a summary of their views in Mary McCormick Maaga Hearing the Voices of Jonestown Andries 22:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I do agree that the definition of the anti-cult movement is difficult and I have tried and tried before but the current definition is clearly incorrect and opposition to cults and new religious comprises of more than just the anti-cult movement. Andries 23:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Barrett also wrote about the anti-cult movement but he did not give a clear definition unfortunately. Andries 23:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I myself distinguish between the more secular ACM and Christian Apologetics. Recently, these two currents have become closer to each other in terms of ideology, though. I have no qualms to lump them together in one ACM, or, as Bromley&Shupe call them "organized opposition against cults." As an aside, there are no clear-cut definitions in sociology that would compare to definitions in physics or mathematics.--Fossa 23:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that Melton made a distinction between the Christian apologetic counter-cult movement and the anti-cult movement, but the latter is difficult to define. Do you have references to back up your statement that Bromley called the ACM "organized opposition to cults", because it clearly is a different defintion than I have read from them. This article used to have a better definition provided by me, based on the book by Barrett. Andries 23:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Moreover, if we used the definition of "organized opposition against cults" then we have to exclude some individuals, like Tilman Hausherr who are generally considered to be part of the ACM. In other words, that definition is incorrect. Andries 00:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Definitions are part and parcel of Wikipedia. Andries 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy warning

message: #This article treats a lot of opposition to cults and new religious movements that is not part of the ACM. This should be removed or moved. On the other hand, they should be treated here to some extent to give the reader insight in the matter. Andries 09:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up reasons and tasks Feb 2006

message: I suggest that Cult debate be deleted, it is closely related to this and other definitions, it isn't a real term. Sadly I don't know how to start a request for deletion. --Tilman 17:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you looking for WP:AFD? Antonrojo 18:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. So many policies, so little time :( --Tilman 05:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult debate