Talk:Anti-cult movement/Archive 2

message: "In the 1970s the new concept of "moral panic" was developed (see Jenkins 1998) in order to explain how some social problems become overconstructed and generate exaggerate fears. Moral panics are defined as socially constructed social problems characterized by a reaction, both in media representation and in political forums, out of proportion to the actual threat, often based on folk statistics that, although not confirmed by scholarly studies, are repeated from media to media and may inspire political measures." *
One area where reports of Type II are still very much uncertain is mind control ... . They seem to believe that a real problem exist and that something should be done. It seems that the radical extent of criticism of the brainwashing theories by most (English-speaking) mainline scholars has not yet been appreciated even by Type II reports. Behind these labels, however, there is often in Type II reports a legitimate concern for consumer protection. *
* I think, it is important to note that there is more than just difference of opinions among scholars: "cult-lovers" are commonly accused not in naivety, but is being funded by the cults, connection to paedophiles, participation in Vampire fan groups etc. At the same time, anti-cultists are not only relatives or "victims", there are anti-cult scholars and there are people who receive pay for "deprogramming" (and many of the latter served prison terms for that - kidnapping+bodily harm). IMO that means that there is some (probably government-endorsed as the below reference to MK-Ultra suggests) more or less organized anti-cult hysteria campaign, of which conformist academics play an important role.
*"The AFF attracted criticism because several of its advisors had "hands-on" experience with brainwashing, by virtue of their association with the CIA's MK-ULTRA project: these were Margaret Singer, Robert J Lifton, Louis Jolyon West, and Maurice Davis."
Can somebody please provide references for this sentence. Andries 21:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholarly anti-cult activism, references

message: Anti-cult activists disclose information or perspectives that the movements themselves do not disclose. That is a proven and documented fact. Andries 23:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The words "they claim" is unjustified

message: Since brainwashing has its own article, there is no reason for this article to describe it with the oversimplification of "now discredited".  Changing the description from "existing theory on brainwashing" to "now discredited theory on brainwashing" also restores the incorrect impression that brainwashing was a theory proposed by the anti-cult movement in the 1960 and early 1970s to explain the behavior of middle-class youths doing things their parents didn't understand, rather than proposed a decade earlier to explain far more dramatic apparent alterations of people's beliefs and behavior. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored my last edit, with the exception of "now discredited theory..." It is a much better NPOV version than the previous one. --Zappaz 02:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't, actually.  Your version makes numerous POV and unsourced statements which can most charitably be called oversimplifications, and none of them are really necessary, since the question is rather properly addressed in the brainwashing article itself.  If you feel the section as written contains disputable statements, dispute them.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the brainwashing theory have been totally discredited as it pertains to cults, as presented in Brainwashing#Brainwashing_by_cults. On the other hand, this article, treats brainwashing very differently. Why do you see a problem in explaining to the reader that fact? --Zappaz 19:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not well-sourced in Brainwashing#Brainwashing_by_cults, either; for instance, the reference that is given to back up the assertion that the APA found Margaret Singer's work "not scientific" (quotes in the original) does not in fact contain those quoted words, and seeing how the page being referenced is on the site of the new Cult Awareness Network, owned and operated by Scientology, it can hardly be claimed that this is all the citation that is needed to support the conclusions announced in the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Hope my last edit stays. I just added some referenced text. ---Zappaz 20:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed reference to APA documents: http://www.cesnur.org/testi/APA_Documents.htm --Zappaz 20:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better.  Perhaps even it should even be changed to this one (the only one, if I'm not mistaken, which directly quotes the APA's Molko brief on the matter): . -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: There, changed it to a citation to the APA's actual Molko brief (and an actual quote from them, since "not scientific" turned out to not be an actual quote.  There's still some work to be done; for instance, I've discovered we have an article on mental health law and I'd like to see if we can find from there references to the specific legal terminology for a state of diminished competency. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good hunting... Just note that the discredit of brainwashing theories is not limited to the APA... --Zappaz 16:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brainwashing 

message: I have removed twice the book cover from this article. It is innapropriate to have books that sell commercially to have covers featured in articles, for the following reasons:
#This is an encyclopedia. What is the encyclopedic value of a book cover?
#As a precedent, if this is allowed, anyone could add book covers to any article. This is not Amazon.com.
--Zappaz 00:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The book cover is an example of the activities of the anti-cult movement. There are many articles that have book covers as pictures because they are fair use. See  Category:Book_covers. Every article should have a picture to make it more attractive. That is a requirement for a Featured article. Please replace it with a better pic if you find one. Andries 14:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that book covers are fair use, does not mean that these are encyclopedic. IMO., it is pretty ridiculous to feauture a book cover in this article. --Zappaz 19:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to disagree. What do you suggest as an alternative picture? May be you can ask for a request for comment, Andries 19:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not go to the extent to do a RfC for this...! But again, IMO, it is a ridiculous idea to have a picture of a book cover in this article.  --Zappaz 20:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain why you consider this ridiculous? I really do not understand. Andries 20:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book cover 

message: I have removed twice the book cover from this article. It is innapropriate to have books that sell commercially to have covers featured in articles, for the following reasons:
#This is an encyclopedia. What is the encyclopedic value of a book cover?
#As a precedent, if this is allowed, anyone could add book covers to any article. This is not Amazon.com.
--Zappaz 00:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The book cover is an example of the activities of the anti-cult movement. There are many articles that have book covers as pictures because they are fair use. See  Category:Book_covers. Every article should have a picture to make it more attractive. That is a requirement for a Featured article. Please replace it with a better pic if you find one. Andries 14:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that book covers are fair use, does not mean that these are encyclopedic. IMO., it is pretty ridiculous to feauture a book cover in this article. --Zappaz 19:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to disagree. What do you suggest as an alternative picture? May be you can ask for a request for comment, Andries 19:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not go to the extent to do a RfC for this...! But again, IMO, it is a ridiculous idea to have a picture of a book cover in this article.  --Zappaz 20:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain why you consider this ridiculous? I really do not understand. Andries 20:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book cover 

message: The CESNUR in their own words (my highlights):
:CESNUR, the Center for Studies on New Religions, was established in 1988 by a group of religious scholars from leading universities in Europe and the Americas. Its managing director, professor Massimo Introvigne, has held teaching positions in the field of sociology and history of religion in a number of Italian universities. He is the author of twenty-three books and the editor of another ten in the field of religious sciences. CESNUR's original aim was to offer a professional association to scholars specialized in religious minorities, new religious movements, contemporary esoteric, spiritual and gnostic schools, and the new religious consciousness in general. In the 1990s it became apparent that inaccurate information was being disseminated to the media and the public powers by activists associated with the international anti-cult movement. Some new religious movements also disseminated unreliable or partisan information. CESNUR became more pro-active and started supplying information on a regular basis, opening public centers and organising conferences and seminars for the general public in a variety of countries. Today CESNUR is a network of independent but related organizations of scholars in various countries, devoted to promote scholarly research in the field of new religious consciousness, to spread reliable and responsible information, and to expose the very real problems associated with some movements, while at the same time defending everywhere the principles of religious liberty. While established in 1988 by scholars who were mostly Roman Catholic, CESNUR has had from its very beginning boards of directors including scholars of a variety of religious persuasions. It is independent from any Church, denomination or religious movement. CESNUR International was recognized as a public non-profit entity in 1996 by the Italian authorities, who are the main current contributors to its projects. It is also financed by royalties on the books it publishes with different publishers, and by contributions of the members. As a public non-profit entity, accounts of its projects are filed with the Region of Piedmont, in Italy.
Definitively worth mentioning in this article as one of the most vocal opponents to anti-cult ideology and propaganda. --Zappaz 16:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Zappaz, such a reticent way of saying things differs quite a lot from the way Melton and Bromley formulated their strong criticism. Andries 16:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree... but CESNUR is still an important source of criticism. --Zappaz 17:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  CESNUR 

message: You will need to do better that add comments that accuse a person to be this or that. You can, if you wish, provide references to articles or papers in which Party "A" says Party "B" is this or that, and then clearly denote in the the text. Pleasde read NPOV. --Zappaz 22:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your latest edits keep falling outside NPOV. Please read the NPOV guidelines before editing. --Zappaz 17:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I love those critics from a master of the game, my compliments to the chef ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 18:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the idea that everything referenced deserves to go in and everything unreferenced deserves to go out.  For instance, Massimo Introvigne does not speak for the anti-cult movement; his eight-point "apology" in which he presumes to speak for them and explain their supposed criteria merits, at best, a condensed summary.  Gems such as asserting that the anti-cult movement states "scholars can't be trusted" are not less straw men just because it's not an editor here doing the misrepresentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Pgreenfinh 

message: :You need to add a citacion/source for the list you added. I have added an NPOV waring to that section till you do so. Each and every edit
::I can provide a citation for each and every allegation made by critical former members of cults but that takes some time of course. Andries 07:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you chose to do this then we will need to add to the title: "Allegations against cults by ex-members".  I would prefer to stick with scholarly citacions.-Zappaz 14:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I do not see the use of scholar when the evidence can be directly linked to with attributed accusations against specific groups instead. That is closer to NPOV than general unattributed statements without mentioning the specific group. Besides not all of the accusations come from former members but also from skeptics and scholars like David Lane. Andries 15:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we should make two sections: one listing allegations by apostates and one by scholars.--Zappaz 15:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessary, I will indicate clearly in the list whether the accusation was made by a scholar or by a former member. In the case of SSB they strongly overlap. Andries 15:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zappaz, I think it is crazy to have two or three lists (former followers, scholars, skeptics). How can you seperate the criticism by David Lane of Eckankar from that of former members? Or that by scholar Robert Priddy from that of other former members? Andries 15:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not crazy, Andries. It is fair that we make these distinctions. If there is a scholar that is also a an ex-member, we can note it. I will separate these into sub-sections, and whatever is not attributed I will move to the talk page. This will allow us to remove the disputed tags, while you continue your research. --Zappaz 15:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree because it is too intertwined. For example the first one to make the accusations against SSB was David Lane and he founded the crucial yahoo group sathyasaibaba2.  I have indicated it as much as possible already. It must be sufficiently clear for the reader now.  Andries 16:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems  Zappaz  doesn't understand, or want to understand, that the allegations are obviously from "anti-cultist". It is even superfluous to give all those sources as seeing their content they are obviously from that side, if not who from !!! Just a harassment method by Zappaz to block the article with his overattribution craze. Wikipedia doesnt want to go to such extremes as giving attribution to all sentences as long that it is common sense that they are not inventions from the writer. Imagine the mess if any article was peppered with references all along! Interpreting so narrowly a rule is changing is nature. In French, this is called an "abus de droit". I think we are going for a big conflict of principles here. --Pgreenfinch 16:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that if a statement is made a ex-member Joe Blow, and another is made by the government of France and yet another is made by a sociologist studying religions, we do not need to give the readers the benefit of these sources? How can you say this is harassment?  --Zappaz 16:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pgreenfich & Zappaz, I think that ex-member Joe Blow can be more accurate, fairer, and certainly more up to date than those sociologist and the French govt. Most of the negative information of these sociologists and governemnts come from Joe Blow ex-members. Though I have to admit that Joe Blow's testimonial may be colored by his sense of betrayal, esp. when he has just left the movement. I would appreciate help in finding more references and attributions. Andries 17:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case, you need to state it. You and I know very well that the reliability of apostate's testimony has been widely challlenged and it is highly controversial. I have helped, didn't I. I think that the ref from Robin and dick Anthony was such... --Zappaz 17:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have told you several times that the testimonies, according to Bromley are only unreliable if, the ex-members are pressured to fit them into a ideological model such as the brainwashing model. Andries 17:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many other scholars besides Bromley. Apostasy#In_new_religious_movements_.28NRMs.29
===References===
It is not enough that you place a link to a website. Each one of these statements needs to be accompanied by a label denoting who said it. Is is a scholar?, a newspaper?, an apostate?, etc? only then it will be NPOV. --Zappaz 14:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, I will try but it takes some time and besides I have already done that to a great extent. I assume that you will remove your disputed label as soon as I have finished that. Andries 15:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, can the NPOV warning removed now? Andries 20:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations against cults section by Andries

message: It is not enough that you place a link to a website. Each one of these statements needs to be accompanied by a label denoting who said it. Is is a scholar?, a newspaper?, an apostate?, etc? only then it will be NPOV. --Zappaz 14:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will try but it takes some time and besides I have already done that to a great extent. I assume that you will remove your disputed label as soon as I have finished that. Andries 15:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, can the NPOV warning removed now? Andries 20:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I agree with you that Introvigne portrays a charicature of anti-cult activism (in a wide sense) but your edits are very POV. Andries 19:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my good heart trying to save Zappaz from shooting at his/her own foot, somebody has to help, but maybe I should try love bombing ;-))) --Pgreenfinch 22:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: why do you see the need to "save" me? Are you an evagelical Christian? --Zappaz 22:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just protecting biodiversity, we need to keep all specimens ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 23:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PGreenfich your edits are very POV

message: I have performed a major edit, including:
*New expanded intro para
*Created appropriate subsections on "Allegations against cults"
*Removed NPOV tag for that section
*Rearrangement of sections for continuity
*Removed duplicated wikilinks
*Overall cleanup, formatting and tightening of spacing
*Added list of groups studying new religions and the anti-cult movement
*Expanded see also section
*Many typos and grammar corrections
I spent a lot of time on this edit, cleaning-up and re-arranging... I leave the  for now, and until article reaches stability.
--Zappaz 00:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still quite messy article. I tried to put some order in the starter part (intro / origin / motives) so the reader can identify what is the gin, the vermout and the olive. I wonder who had interest in creating such confusion, and adding to it in its new "major edit". I don't see much future as a writer for that sloppy bartender, not that he/she should worry, as usual I'm here to help ;-)). Btw, I'have seen you left the childish part by massimo. Your insistance is cruel for that poor..., how do you say..., oh yes: "scholar". This piece would not enhance his academic résumé. On the other hand, no problem for Hadden's platitudes, the guy does not need a job anymore. I enjoy this article, hope you share the fun ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 08:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Where do you see that unfairness? After reading the article, with the huge list of allegations made by ex-members (I think that the only allegation missing is drinking the blood of little children in the sabbath), what do you expect? I would say that it begs skepticism. If you are in favor of the anit-cult movement, I would argue that by putting that list in the article you are not doing your movement any favors. As per Pgreenfinch words in the edit summary, that my edits are "vandalism", I would argue to quite the contrary. He has been deleting whole sentences, for no apparent reasons. The fact that I edit anonymously does not give you the right to trash my edits or treat me with disrespect. --38.119.107.72 23:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How gross! You are the one who deleted whole sentences for no apparent reason, unless it was to avoid the embarassement to have the term defined, a thing I consider an obvious minimum as an article starter. --Pgreenfinch 09:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I do not think that the list begs skepticism. I challenge you to find one false allegation in the list. It is just a natural consequence of the great power that gurus have over their disciples. One person I know quite well almost committed suicide due to a this SSB guru whom I followed for 9 years. Scholars can and are sometimes wrong e.g. George Chryssides wrote that SSB practiced what he preached! Read the well documented scholarly article "A Guru Accused" by Alexandra Nagel on http://www.exbaba.com And I also know other stories about a still well-respected guru that I am not allowed to tell. One of the reasons that the list is so long is because there are so many different gurus, NRMs and cults. Only a fraction is mentioned.Andries 23:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I know quite a lot of those people who make these allegations. I phone with them and emailed with them. Andries 23:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: 38.119.107.72, if the only reason that you do not believe these allegations is because they are so horrible then I can fully understand. They were horrible for me too and it took me years of talking and doing research before I came to the conclusions that those horrible accusations against SSB were supported by sound evidence. Andries 10:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Good initiative, Andries, it will help clarify things. --Pgreenfinch 14:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need yet another article on this. It is well covered already. Placed on VfD. --Zappaz 16:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edit 

message: Your edits are not useful. It seems to me that this is a game for you and not taking editing seriously enough. Please discuss here what is the problem with the opening paragraph. Note that an article 'needs to have a good summary of the whole article. That is the reason for it. --Zappaz 02:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your remark is inconsistent with your refusal to give a definition of the term, the first thing to do in a summary. And historical considerations are not what makes a good summary. I suggest to include instead, following a short definition, the two types of oppositions. After seeing your asymmetric requirements in various articles, it seems to me, but I'm not Sigmund, that you are so routinely used at playing games to others that you don't realize when you trap yourself in them. As always, trying to help. --Pgreenfinch 08:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. I think we are getting there. --Zappaz 19:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pgreenfinch edits (2) 

message: Let's adhere to the advice given in Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Comments like the following don't seem to be helping us get the article written:
* inconsistent
* not taking editing seriously enough 
* not useful
* playing games, a game for you
* you trap yourself
* your asymmetric requirements  
* your refusal to give a definition 
Let's talk about the article, please. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
::Love the teacher in  you Ed! Thanks... --Zappaz 21:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Will I be invited to the wedding? --Pgreenfinch 23:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Play nice

message: Great NPOV job on that intro para... Only demonstrate how much I have still to learn...! -- Zappaz 05:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you SlimVirgin 

message: The distinction betweem ACM and CCM is a minority opinion in academia. Even those who propose the distinction acknowledge that fact. Wikipedia is not the place to minority opinions, but instead should follow the majority opinion. Wikipedia should use the lemma that is the most common label for this opinion: "Anti-cult movement". Fossa?! 12:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with Opposition to Cults and NRM