Talk:Cult

Talk:Cult/archive1 - Talk:Cult/archive2 - talk:Cult/archive3

Competing definitions of "cult"

According to T. Robbins on his ""The Sociology of Contemporary Religious Movements" there are three competing definitions of "cult", as follows:

1. The media and popular demonology use of "cult" 'to refer to authoritarian and totalistic movements that "psychologically imprison" converts and that ought to be controlled;
2. Some Sociologists using the term "cult" in a manner almost antithetical to the popular pejoritive usage. Whereas "sects" have traditionally been viewed as being relatively intolerant, authoritarian, and close-knit, the term "cult" is now being used by many sociologists to refer to putatively ephemeral groups that lack clear group boundaries, centralized leadership, and standardized dogma, and that make minimal demands on devotees, whose degree of commitment may be highly variable; and
3. Other Sociologists have developed an explicitly substantive concept of a cult as a group that makes a radical break with the dominant religious tradition in the society. In contrast, a sect is a subdivision of the dominant tradition, e.g. a Christian sect in America or a Hindu sect in India. The Hare Krishna would thus be an American cult rather than a Hindu sect.

He further argues that ...the ultimate sociological significance of the present spiritual ferment cannot be assessed without additional information regarding the long term social adjustment and attitudinal and personality transformations of converts, as well as the evolution and institutionalization of current groups.

IMO, any attempts to make generalizations as the ones proposed in this WP article are inherently invalid due to the complexity of the issue at hand. --Zappaz 20:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Social psychology of religion

I appreciate Wetman's critique of the terminology:

Cult is identified by an unhealthy relation between an individual and a sect, in which the individual is socially and psychologically manipulated, not for the individual's good.

To what extent do religions, denominations and sects exploit and manipulate their members? This is a question that transcends the size or age of a religious group. It can also be approached from different perspectives:

• materialistic + mental health perspective (there is no God or afterlife, so it's all bogus anyway)
• competitive perspective (that other group are all heretics)
• "We only disagree with their methods, not their theology."

I don't think we can write an accurate and unbiased article on "cults" without FIRST identifying the perspectives from which people are condemning various religions as "spurious".

Moreover, NOBODY has created a definition, test or checklist which objectively distinguishes between a "real church" and a "fake" one. There is tremendous infighting between denominations of Christianity, not to mention between branches of Islam. And several Christian groups have called Buddhism or Islam on Hinduisms "cults" or "false religions". It's a mess.

One simple but tedious approach is to list every group which has been branded a "cult" -- along with the group or individual doing the branding. We might make a chart, with the branders along one axis and the branded down the other. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:55, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Cooperative editing

I've carefully read everybody's comments, and even though clearly there's a lot of disagreement I feel that everyone is sincere and honest, not to mention exceptionally well-informed. There are various points being emphasized, as well as different points of view espoused.

Jossi and I like our "cults", while Andries despises his (former) one. David and Zappaz and Antaeus and Gary bring a more detached but perhaps better-focused perspective.

I have a good feeling about prospects for Wikipedia:cooperation on the new version. Have a good weekend, everybody! --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:50, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote of confidence. As it turns out, I don't have a particular dog in this fight. I'm happy to chip in with style editing upon request, but otherwise this broth seems to have a healthy number of cooks already. --Gary D 21:59, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I finally read (most of) Eileen Barker's "Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups". [1] And I respect her scholarship for two reasons. First, I've read some of her previous material; it's all research-based, with facts and figures. Second, she's associated with David Bromley, whose work I also respect.

Here are her "ideal types":

• cult-awareness groups (CAGs)
• counter-cult groups (CCGs)
• research-oriented groups (ROGs)
• human-rights groups (HRGs)
• cult-defender groups (CDGs)

They fit neatly into a spectrum, although unsophisticated journalism or advocacy tends to focus on the sparks flying between the anti-cult CAGs and cult-defender groups (CDGs). Like Rick Ross and Steve Hassan heroically rescuing hapless victims vs. "cult apologists" justifying mind control.

I enjoy reading ROG literature the most. HRG is boring for me, because I'm already convinced that people have a right to choose their religion (and I've made my choice). CDGs don't have much information that's relevant to creating an encyclopedia article.

That leaves two. First, the theologically minded counter-cult groups who criticize heretical sects and NRMs. Best way to handle them (for Wikipedia purposes) is to describe as clearly as possible WHY they disagree theologically with other religions. If Falwell calls all of Islam or Buddhism a "cult", it's probably because they don't accept Jesus as their "personal Lord and Savior"; he's not disputing that they are sincerely religious, though -- just hapless misguided heretics or heathens. And some established Christian groups have rejected the Unification Church for teaching (1) that Jesus is not God Himself and (2) that the Messiah will come again as a "man born upon the earth".

Second, the anti-cult groups which have other than theological objections.

This gives me an idea for "framing" this series of cult articles. Using Barker's 5 types, we could focus on opposition to "cults" rather than trying to write one article on what a cult is.

• Heresy is the place for all accusations that a given teaching or group is theologically unsound.

• Anti-cult movement is the place for attitudes, assumptions, objections and activities of those who go around calling various NRMs "cults" for non-theological reasons.

The latter article could conceivably incorporate the cult checklist sidebare article.

It would focus on various counter-cult people and organizations and say WHY they regard various particularly groups as "spurious" (i.e., a cult). Like Steve Hassan says "Moonies are a cult" because:

• they use mind control - describe his theory, and any evidence (if any) which he gives that they engage in the practices he says will result in mind control. It might also be interesting to contrast Hassan's POV with surveys or theories by ROGs -- including Barker herself. Eileen Barker and UC official Tyler Hendricks independently agree that over 90% of recruits left of their own free will within 2 years of "moving in" as full-time members.
• they just exist for Moon's aggrandizement; i.e., he's getting rich and powerful at their expense, and gives them nothing good in return. We could explore this POV, too. Is it just opinion, or what? How do current and former members feel about this topic? Is their any correlation between a one's attitude toward the Unification Church and the way one leaves it? (Barker, AFAIK, says that victims of involuntary deprogramming are much more likely to have a negative outlook toward the group than those who simply dropped out on their own.)

Edits by Zappaz

1. I removed the review by Anthony Campbell of Barrett's book for two reasons
   1. the article already contained a statement that Barret considered the cult label meaning less. I retained some of your edits though i.e. "subjective and negative. (I emailed Campbell some years ago about Barrett's book by the way) Andries 22:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   2. Book reviews can not serve as scholarly sources Andries 22:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. You removed a paragraph that you thought was original research. It was not. And the normal, prescribed procedure is to first to ask for references and if they do not come within in a week then to delete it.~ Andries 22:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What was there originally was written as an unsubstantiated opinion. Thanks for re-writing it.

• I regret that you have chosen to delete the critique of Barret by Cambell, as I see his POV to be prevalent amongst people supportive of new religions (or as anti-cultists call them "apologists"). I will find a scholarly reference that support that very prevalent POV, to replace Campbell's.
• The "normal procedure" is to add references in the first place.
• In regard to the extensive and carefully extracted quotations from Moyers' paper, I see this as quite inappropriate for a WP article. I have read many of your comments in which you yourself do not support the extensive use of quotes to support a POV. I would suggest a short quote and a summary of the paper's points in one or two well written paragraphs. Otherwise I could present 4 or 5 articles that speak to the contrary, quote as profusely as you do and end up with a worthless article in no time. --Zappaz 23:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW, who is this Jim Moyers? The URL you provide is his own personal website. I never heard of him and I have not seen anyone citing him or this paper. --Zappaz 23:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is true, I do not like extensive quotes in an article. But this was an emergency solution because of your immediate deletion of my alleged original research. What Campbell wrote is now in the article twice (skeptics and Barret) though in slightly different wording and should not be repeated yet a third time. Andries 23:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And half of the articles in Wikipedia contain hardly any references. Andries 23:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks about pointing out the quote from Campbell, I may have missed it. But you still do not adress my question about Jim Moyers, neither you address my suggestion to reduce extensive quotation from that aricle. --Zappaz 23:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed quote. I have one more problem with what you wrote in the section "doomsday myth", you wrote "used as evidence" Who uses this evidence? Andries 23:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I attempted to rewrite that sentence. --Zappaz 00:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, it remains an unattributed opinion. Who saw this as evidence? Andries 00:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyone that knows arithmetics... :) --Zappaz

Zappaz, let's assume for a moment that your figures are correct, just for the sake of argument. Are you actually arguing in good faith that

tens of thousands¹⁰ (exactly what does this figure mean?) of NRMs, minus:

ten doomsday cults, equals:

proof of an anti-cult movement manipulating the public perception of cults?

Even if these two figures were better sourced; even if the difference between the figures alone were to prove that public perception on the subject is badly distorted; to leap from that conclusion to announcing "this is evidence of who it is doing the distorting" is just unfounded. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since the text is still referencing "the emphasis on "doomsday cults" by the media and the counter-cult movement", I would like it if those who think they see such an emphasis could actually source that. I think a link to hostile media effect is also quite in order. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Andries, your According to Barrett the most common accusation made against "cults" is sexual abuse is largely innapropriate as in the US just this week the Catholic Church ageed to pay $100 million to victims of sexual abuse by their priests. That is pervasive abuse IMOs.

I possible, could you give me the name of the book or article in which Barrett makes that assertion? Thanks.--Zappaz 01:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, Barrett's The New Believers. I can't find the page nr. anymore. He is right, sexual abuse is very common due to the excessive power/charismatic authority that the leaders have. Andries 09:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um, so? This is relevant how? That's the tu quoque fallacy, Zappaz. Pointing out another institution against which the accusations are levelled doesn't make it "largely inappropriate" to discussion any other accusations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello Antaeus. Finding ourselves again at opposite ends... omg...! I agree with you about my fallacy. I was just making the point that so much time and effort is made to find "inappropriateness" in NRMs, when so much disgraceful attitudes and actions are pervasive in established religions. Concerning the number game above, yes I truly believe that there is a distorted image of emerging religions based on the unfortunate and devastating actions of a few destructive cults. I and I am not alone in that view. --Zappaz 02:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I agree that some anti-cultists have exaggerated the danger but the harm has been underestimated in some cases too.

"It is perhaps surprising that Sai Baba attracts so little attention from anti-cult organisations, since the movement possesses a considerable number of characteristics that are associated with the notion of ‘cult’ in its sociological senses. (…) Sathya Sai Baba’s relative immunity from criticism has no doubt been due in part to the fact that (…) Sai Baba has never been involved in any sexual or financial scandal, but has lived true to his teachings." George Chryssides in Exploring New Religions 1999:179-192, [2]

This refers to India's most popular Godman that has become an absolute horror story for me and many other followers in the year 2000. Read some testimonies of young men who were sexually abused by him. This is different from just a pedophile priest. This is Jesus who turned out to be a pedophile. Andries 08:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is pretty bad Andries if true, Andries. Many people in postion of power have taken advantage of helpless children ... see the horrendous stories coming out of the closet in the USA with Catholic priests. Repugnant stuff. But to go ahead and make a blanket assumption that "if my guru was a pedophile, then all gurus and religious leaders are pedophiles" (or at least suspicious of that) is in my view, very innapropriate. It is the same rational used by ani-cultists: "all emerging religions are bad and their leaders, suspect". That, in my view is called intolerance (to use a kinder word...) --Zappaz 15:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, Barrett wrote that SSB is not an isolated case of a guru who sexually abuses his followers and hence I strongly oppose gullibility and naivite with regards to NRMs. As, I said, I believe that there are structural reasons for this i.e. the power structure with a guru on top who has all power due to his charismatic authority without checks and balances. I am aware that SSB and my experience in his movement is an unusually unfortunate example of what can go wrong with gurus and NRMs and that in most cases it is not that bad. I disagree with what you wrote on your talk page i.e. that testimonies of apostates are unreliable because they are too emotional. I and others have written with a lot of restraint here about SSB in Wikipedia and elsewhere and hence the allegation that testimonies by apostates are unreliable is at least inaccurate and an unjustified generalization. For example, apostate ex-followers have written scholarly article about SSB, some of which were part of a university course. Andries 18:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe you're missing an important point, Zappaz. First of all, you're referring to the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, but you're talking about it as if a disproportionate incidence of pedophilia/ephebophilia had been discovered among Catholic clergy. That is a popular myth, but it is in fact not the case: the incidence among Catholic clergy has been statistically found to be no higher among Catholic clergy than in any profession/avocation which brings regular contact with children and adolescents. What actually made it a scandal was that the church knew about the abuse and viewed it as more important for the souls of their parishioners that they continue to trust their priests and see them as respectable, than that the actual wrongdoing of the priests be addressed! Now as many of us have repeatedly tried to make clear, it is not 'strange, non-mainstream beliefs' that we regard as the hallmark of a cult, it is particular dangerous ways that organizations are structured which tend to create and tend to perpetuate such "repugnant" (to use your words) offenses against human rights and human dignity. To reduce what we've said to 'a blanket assumption that "if my guru was a pedophile, then all gurus and religious leaders are pedophiles"' is, I'm afraid, to show that you haven't understood what we've said. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Antaeus for the clarification about Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. Using your method of statistical analysis, you will find that "cults" have no more incidences of abuse than any any other human endeavor (I have some stats supporting this assertion, that I will soon add to the article). Considering that there are 100's of thousands of such new religions (that you call "cults") what I find inappropriate are the blanket assumptions such as your "...it is not 'strange, non-mainstream beliefs' that we regard as the hallmark of a cult, it is particular dangerous ways that organizations are structured which tend to create and tend to perpetuate such "repugnant" [...]]offenses against human rights and human dignity". These assumptions and judgments, Antaeus, are the basis of my discomfort with your and Andrie's position. --Zappaz 22:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I'm uncomfortable with your finding it inappropriate that I should make a "blanket assumption" about what I myself believe. I am also very cross with you that in presuming to correct my "blanket assumptions" you are sticking words in my mouth. You make reference to "100's of thousands of such new religions (that you call "cults")" and that is a gross untruth about what I believe -- I hope you made it unintentionally. Not only do I not consider every "new religion" a cult, I don't even believe that all cults are religions. For instance, if you look at the early history of psychoanalysis it becomes very clear that Sigmund Freud had a cult-like relationship with his followers; if they did not adhere unquestioningly to points of his doctrine they were summarily expelled from the group. How exactly do you have the right to tell me that I am making a "blanket assumption" about my criteria for what constitutes a cult? I have said I don't consider a group a cult just because it's a new religion; I consider it a cult if it's structured in a particular way that our collective experience has shown leads to dysfunctionality that includes offenses against human rights and human dignity. Now you come along, entirely ignore that distinction which was central to my post, and tell me I'm being inappropriate for declaring that all new religions have that dangerous structure! You're far over the line, Zappaz; it's getting harder for me to assume good faith and believe that you're trying to act with any sort of integrity and decency. If you are really are trying to do so, then for God's sake stop posting so frequently that you don't read what people are saying before you criticize them for what you assume they're saying. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antaeus, I sincerely believe that we have a problem in communicating. Maybe as many say, email and postings of this kind sometimes do not lend themselves to good communication. Hope you can hold to the assumption that I am acting with integrity. I really do.

I apologize if my postings hit some hot buttons in you. That was not my intention.

Let's explore your assertion about "the collective experience about structure" that "has shown leads to dysfunction", shall we? Would you agree that this assertion can be applied to many, many areas of human endeavor and not just to "cults"? --Zappaz 23:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, there are several reasons why there may be more abuse of power in cults and why the effects are more devastating than in mainstream society.

1. Often they have a male charismatic leader without checks and balances on his powers, venerated by his followers. This situation clearly makes sexual abuse and other exploitation by the leader very tempting. I think there are enough examples to say that is more than just an assumption. Andries 08:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Followers invest all of their idealism and faith in the NRM so when something is wrong with the core of the NRM i.e. the leader than they feel devastated and have no choice but leaving, which is traumatic according to Barrett. Andries 08:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. I am not saying that the way the Catholic church has dealt with the sexual abuse is very good but in several NRMs, like the SSB and Muktananda's Siddha yoga, the sexual abuse is denied or rationalized by ardent followers. [3] and hence it continues in spite of public awareness of it until the leaders pass away. Andries 08:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Andries, you could apply your logic to many areas of human endeavor, e.g.:

1. Priests and their churches, and a believer, in mainstream religions;
2. A boss in a corporation and the corporation, and a long time employee;
3. A political leader and his party, and a long time vested partisan;
4. Etc, etc, etc.

My point is that it is the same problem across the board and it is unfair to single out NRMs as an example for these beahaviors. --Zappaz 11:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, unlike a businessman or political leader etc., one the basis for the authenticity of a guru or prophet is often the claim to be selfless and to have transcended material and sexual desires. Many gurus and prophets remain celibate (at least officially) for that reason. Businessmen rarely claim to be pure and selfless or try to give this impression. That is a huge difference. I care little if my boss has inappropriate sexual relationships but I think that Christians would be shocked very much if Jesus turned out to be a pedophile.Andries 12:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, although we disagree about the amount of harm NRMs inflict and the distrust they deserve, I agree with you that the some anti-cult activists, together with the media have exaggerated the danger and harm that cults cause, which the article should tell. The article should reflect also that mainstream religions have not been harmless too. I welcome sections on opposition to cults, cults and media and comparison with mainstream religion. Andries 15:24, 7 Dec 2004

Let us stop clumsy POV pushing

Zappaz, in the last few weeks you have pushed your POV in a clumsy way. I have to admit that I have done it too (long Moyers quote) but I removed it myself after only half an hour after you complained about it. When you want to push your POV then at least do it following the guidelines. Some examples of your clumsy POV pushing are,

• unattributed opinions "can be seen as evidence of propaganda by the anti-cult movement". Andries
• POV suggestive section title "The pervasive "doomsday cult" myth" It is not a myth (untrue). It is rare. ( You also put some information in a non-logical place hence I will revert) Andries 07:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Presenting a website affiliated with Adi Da as if it were a general website. Andries 07:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Repeating an opinion for the third time in the article "One man's cult is another man's religion". Andries 07:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I do not think that our opinions on the subject are that far apart (unlike Prem Rawat). Andries 07:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am getting tired of all this crap, but I will keep my cool and not snap at you for this unwarranted accusation. I would just say that you should look at yourself and your own edits before judging me or others. --Zappaz 15:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I just read your edits, Andries. Now, tell me: who is the one pushing POV here. Why are you deleting text and sections? I am tempted to revert your last edit, but will give you the opportunity to re-consider your edits. --Zappaz 15:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I deleted text that was mentioned twice i.e. "destructive cults are rare" and I deleted a section title to ensure that all information was in the right place. I will try to look critically at my own edits. I admit that I, like you, have pushed my POV in a clumsy way in this article. Andries 17:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, thanks, I do not have a problem with your latest edits. Andries 08:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

About POV's, neutrality and WP

This is my understanding on POV, neutrality and WP - Editors gravitate to the articles they care about (naturally!) as such they have usually strong opinions about the subject of these articles. Case in point: you and me. We both care about the subject to spend quite a bit of our free time in developing articles we care about. In this context we are all somehow pushing our POVs. What pisses me off, though, are people that hide behind a façade of "neutrality" and judge others of POV pushing. Case in point: Antaeus. I just discovered yesterday of his support of Rick Ross as well as his clearly stated anti-Scientology stance. Nothing wrong with that! But my case is that everyone has his POV and thank god for that!

Now, WP has an NPOV policy that IMO is an incredibly potent policy. Here we have the opportunity to create an encyclopedia that encompasses all ares of human endeavor. This has never been attempted before. All fueled by the power of "people" like you and me, that care about certain topics and are willing to add, edit and enhance articles.

So, how this POV of editors and the NPOV aims of Wikipedia coalesce? Simply by understanding what NPOV really means: Yes we all have our POVs, and as long as we do not claim A to be true or B to be false, and as long we don't claim we are objective and other are not, but instead we present all points of view' of a dispute fairly, we are good to go. Quoting fron NPOV:

Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased.

To make it more interesting and challenging, I would quote Jimbo (my highlight):

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. -- Jimbo Wales

So Andries, yes: I have my POV and so you and everyone else. That is not a problem, that is the fuel of this encyclopedia. --Zappaz 16:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think your argument here is missing an important point, Zappaz. You seem to be claiming that because no editor is without their own POV, no editor can be any more guilty of "POV pushing" than any other. What you neglect to factor in is that good editors who are aware they have their own POV but are still aiming for NPOV try to establish standards: rules that should be applied consistently regardless of whose POV is favored by a particular application. Your claim that you now "understand my POV" because you have looked at a small sample of my edits and have said "oh, he supports Rick Ross and opposes Scientology" is utterly incorrect if you don't understand how standards have factored in those edits: if you were to go back and look at a truly representative sample, you would find that I have added to Rick Ross's article information negative to him, and have edited out anti-Scientology information from articles on Scientology. Why? Because they didn't meet the standard, and therefore even if I agreed with their POV I could not view them as acceptable to the article.

Am I "hid[ing] behind a façade of 'neutrality'"? No. What I am doing is attempting to approach neutrality, by pushing standards to be applied to both POVs, rather than pushing my POV. If you disagree with the standards I advocate, then go and advocate some better ones and if you get them, be prepared to live with them, even when it doesn't suit your POV. Of course, I don't have much hope for that, seeing what you've done to avoid living by a simple objective standard like the 3RR. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another example of clumsy POV pushing

As usual Zappaz POV pushing is unfair to people who suffered due to cults He wrote

"The stigma surrounding the classification of a group as as a cult stems from the narratives of purported ill effect the group's influence has on its members."

Either the words "narratives of" or "purported" should be removed. Otherwise it is just tautological. Andries 21:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

???? "Narratives of purported ill effect" is an accurate statement. I do not understand why you are complaining about and accusing me. Very unfair. Maybe the POV pusher is you? The fact that you suffered by following Sai baba and later regretting it, does not give you the right to accuse me. Very unfair Andries!--Zappaz 21:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, it should be "narratives of ill effect" or "purported ill". It is not necessary to make it double uncertain. Andries 21:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Narratives "accounts" as told by someone. Nothing to do with uncertainty. It is a common term used in Sociology. Maybe a language problem, Andries?

From wikitionary: The systematic recitation of an event or series of events --Zappaz 01:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, when I tell about ill effect of my former cult then it is a "narrative of ill effect", not a "narrative of purported ill effect". When Margaret Singer writes about cults then it is not a "narrative of purported ill effect" but "purported ill effect" so in both case your way of formulating is wrong and puts the ill effects of cults under excessive scepticism. Andries (amended) 09:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No big deal, IMO both these are narratives. Have you read Singer's book? That is just an amazing cocktail of narratives, some of which are just quite unbelievable. Uncanny similarity with Edward Hunter's narratives on brainwasing. --Zappaz 17:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have not read much by Singer but she does more than recounting narratives [4] Andries 18:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz will even adapt to the definition of Introvigne that the Jim Jones massacre was rather that of a communist group than that of a cult. So don't wonder why he is bending and twisting. He wants to change the view of the whole society on certain facts and terms. A goal that will fit only into one ethic attitude, his own. Thomas h 10:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, the "whole society" is on the side of the anti-cultists. Don't make me laugh, I have an hangover! LOL! .... and Happy New Year to yo too! --Zappaz 17:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Happy new year, thanks! Thomas h 19:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• "the purported harm experienced by members" it should be "the harm experienced by members"

As if there has not been sexual abuse by gurus or in the Hare Krishna movements. Zappaz, If you continue like this I will ask for a request for comment because of your user conduct. Not on contents of this article. Andries 18:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I changed it. Previously it reads as if all members experience harm and was badly written. Now it reads:

Much of the actions taken against cults and alleged cults have been in reaction to the harm experienced by some members due to their affiliation with the groups in question.

That is factually correct.

And please, if I may ask, stop creating new sections for each comment you make in this page. --Zappaz 19:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I agree with that edit. Thanks. 19:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that phrasing works well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Phew! --Zappaz 03:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I removed a whole section because it was basically a copy of the opinion of the non-scholarlry, non-notable website Ontario religious tolerance. I think such editing is unacceptable and I have never edited this subject in such a way (except once which I reverted myself quickly) though it would be very easy to mention extensively the opinions of various ant-cultivists. I consider this yet another example of clumsy POV pushing by you that gives me the inpression that you do not care about the NPOV guidelines but you only want to push your POV to the maximum and you leave it up to others to correct the worst cases of your POV pushing. Andries 09:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, you may not realize it but you go further than e.g. Barker in belittling the possibly harmful consequences of NRM affiliation. I think she is generally fair and reasonable. Andries 10:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you stop using"clumsy POV" arguments. The deletion of the text is totally unapropriate. It is referenced as all other material that I have added. --Zappaz 16:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

True, it is references and attributed but it is an non-notable reference. I will stop using "clumsy POV arguments" if you stop clumsy POV pushing. And please note that I only started calling some of your edits "clumsy POV pushing" after seeing and evaluating hundreds of your edits on the subject of cults and NRMs. Andries 16:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The material by Ontario Consultants is also supported by Bromley and Richardson. Please do not delete. Also, who are you to decide was is notable and what is not? I can go back to many of your edits and delete the mention of that your references are "not notable". Give me break, Andries. How do you dare calling me a POV pusher? Look at yourself before before making baseless accusations. My edits have all added good material to this and other articles and that is the only reason they stay. You are welcome to add more material that supports your POV. This is what is all bout, not your quabbles about "POV pushing". --Zappaz 16:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then cite Bromley and Richardson instead of the non-notable website Ontario consultants. I have given several examples of POV pushing by you in this articles the last few weeks and that is why I dare to call you POV pusher. Yes, I could fill the whole article with non-scholary, opinions of ant-cult activists easily but I have chosen not to do that because that is inappropriate and unencyclopedic. ~What edits by me contain references that are non-authorative or not-notable? Andries 17:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"My edits have all added good material to this and other articles and that is the only reason they stay."

"Also, who are you to decide was is notable and what is not?"

"How do you dare calling me a POV pusher?"

So, let's see, your work deserves to stay because of the indisputable high quality of your work. Except wait! The high quality of your work is in fact disputed! Oh, but wait -- you've declared that certain people have no right to dispute the quality of your work, they shouldn't "dare" to do so. "My edits have all added good material to this and other articles and that is the only reason they stay." -- well, that's one explanation; another is that no matter how many people revert your contributions because they're not good, you revert them right back, scream that they're on your "ignore list" and that they're "deleting facts", and if you run out of reverts, you split off a new article.

"You are welcome to add more material that supports your POV. This is what is all bout, not your quabbles about "POV pushing"." You asked me elsewhere why I was so angry with you. This is it. We should all be trying to write in a way that transcends POV. Instead, you switch between 'I'm reverting your edits because they're POV' and "This is what is all about". I am angry because instead of being able to cooperate with other editors in editing together a version that fairly represents all sides, I can't do so when you're involved. Nothing shows this more plainly than what just happened at Brainwashing -- I put in two quotes that supported your POV, not of course because they supported your POV, but because they were factual information. You added two more quotes from the same source on the same theme. When I tried to remove one of those four quotes, one of the ones that I added, because three should have been plenty and investigation of the context showed that that one was highly misleading out of context, you raised a stink, accusing me of "deleting facts". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The quote that you deleted was the crucial one. You know it, admit it. --Zappaz 18:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was certainly crucial to establishing a false impression, which is why the article would be improved if it was removed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not true, and you know it! That sentence (""The coercive persuasion theory ... is not a meaningful scientific concept") comes directly from the amicus curiae brief and is the most crucial. The article is improved by leaving it. BTW, this discussion is not for here but for Talk:Brainwashing. --Zappaz 00:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, Zappaz, would you do me a favor, please? Next time you find yourself ready to use that hateful and false phrase "Something that I believe and you do not, and you know it!" kindly shut up. It contributes nothing to the conversation except an implication of bad faith. And yes, this belongs in Talk:Brainwashing but it became relevant here because the conversation turned to your POV pushing, which is sadly consistent across articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, being angry does not help here and only contributes to escalation. I disagree with your asessment that anyone that is truly passionate about a subject can write in a way that transcend POV. I am very aware that on these subjects I an not partial. Based on that awareness, I act. What about you? --Zappaz 18:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're engaging in black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking, Zappaz. What I wrote was "We should all be trying to write in a way that transcends POV." You misrepresent that by replying "I disagree with your asessment that anyone that is truly passionate about a subject can write in a way that transcend[s] POV." No, none of us can perfectly transcend POV, but that is no reason we should not be aiming for that. To say "No, I cannot achieve perfect neutrality, therefore I will not even aim in that direction" is a cop-out. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

About the fuel that drives WP, POVs, and irritating things

Zappaz, I have to admit that one of the reason I artrack your edits is because it irritates me very much that you never seem to admit a mistake and never apologize for clumsy edits that happen to support your POV. Andries 17:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look Andries, it is almost impossible that we don't irritate each other for the simple fact that our wordlviews are so totally opposed and our motives for editing WP so very different. My view of WP is that I can only contribute to articles that I either know a lot about, or feel passionately enough about its subject to research it futher. The results are text additions that by default would be "tainted" by our respective POVs. The beauty is WP is that we do not need to resort to endless debates and edit wars because by nature, opposing POVs on a controversial subject such as this will eventually (given time and patience) find balance and achieve the coveted NPOV status. What I find most irritating is the position of some editors that claim to be "neutral" on subjects that are clearly not neutral about. For example, I am neutral about the India-Pakistan conflict, but I am not neutral about emerging religions. Although I can claim neutrality about the former, I cannot do the same about the latter. I have to be highly conscious of that distinction, otherwise I will come across as a pedantinc, righteous SOB, that is IMO what some editors come across as. Other things that irritate me massively, is the misinterpretation of NPOV, and the self-appointed, and arrogant position about NPOV, claiming to be the upholders of that standard while in fact they use that as a weapon to fight anyone that has a contrarian POV to theirs, rather that to allow the other side to make their points and counteract with additional material. That "battle" in which two sides of a controversy add well refereced and attributed material to support their POV, is the foundation of WP. After that first fundation is laid down, good copyeditors can then make the prose readable and make the total effort to be worthwile: an excellent article that we can all feel proud about. --Zappaz 17:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, you always defend your edits as if they are perfect. I have admitted my mistakes in making POV edits several times in this article though I think that you made more mistakes but you never admitted one mistake and you keep making mistakes. May be you can understand why I accused you of being a POV pusher. Andries 18:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be a bad idea if we both inserted non-notable, non-authorative opinions that support our different POVs. Then the article would be worthless in a week. Andries 18:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My edits, your edits and Antaeus edits are NOT perfect. But the contributions by each one of us, and the checks and balances we each excert over the other is what has the potential to make this article as good as it can be.--Zappaz 18:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then why don't you apologize for bad POV edits, like I do? If you keep on making clumsy POV edits without apologies then may be it is not so strange that I get a wrong impression of you? Andries 18:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cults and governments

The text about India does not belong in that section as it is about the position and actions of governments on cults and not about individual legal cases. You can put that text in a new stub about Swami Premananda. --Zappaz 17:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

===India=== In [[1997]] a judge in [[Tamil Nadu]] convicted the controversial [[godman]] [[Swami Premananda]] for rape of female followers who were minors and for one murder. [http://www.rediff.com/news/aug/20godman.htm] [http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/shortnews/GuruGallery/Premananda.htm] [http://www.sripremananda.org/english/e1_swami/e1c_case/e1c_case01.htm] In spite of this, he continues to have a worldwide following. [http://www.sripremananda.org/english/e3_world/e3_home.htm#] </nowkiki>

well, most people would consider it a cult so it is a case against a cult leader. Andries 17:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

on second thoughts I have to admit that you are right. Andries 17:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It was very honorable of you to admit it. --Zappaz 17:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Zappaz, could you please correct some grammar problems in the section leaving a cult? Now I do not even understand what you mean to say. Andries 18:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I could only find a comma that was not needed... Maybe others are better than me at copyedit and can look at the prose. --Zappaz 20:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

what do you mean with "alleged consequences"? Does it refer to brainwashing? That is not clear. Barker does not say that involvement in a cult does not have consequences. If you mean to say that then you misunderstood her or only read a little of her work. Andries 20:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No... not Barker... Hadden and Bromley do... Re-written and reverted. Hope it is clear now. --Zappaz 02:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I still do not understand the paragraph. What is now written there is nonsense. Barker was never a propopent of the Brainwashing theory and where is the the empirical evidence that Bromley refers to. There has been done very little empirical research. Please re-write this nonsense. Andries 07:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ooops! That was Singer, not Baker.... (the empirical evidence citacion is from 14. Hadden, J and Bromley, D eds. (1993), The Handbook of Cults and Sects in America. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., pp. 75-97.)

About-Picard law

I removed the following paragraph. I don't see how it fits with the article; especially, I don't see what "this did not condemn the French legislation for protecting freedom" is supposed to mean. Article L2-17 means that some associations declared of public usefulness can, sort of, do class-action lawsuits against certain crimes. David.Monniaux 07:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This did not condemn the French legislation for protecting freedom, which Section 2-17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:

Any association recognized as serving public interests regularly registered since at least five years at the date of the facts and proposing through its statutes to defend and help individuals or to defend individual and public rights and freedoms can, at the occasion of acts committed by any individual or legal entity, in the frame of a movement or organization which has as its purpose or effect to create, maintain or exploit a psychological or physical subjection, exercise the recognized civil party rights regarding the offences of intended or unintended prejudice to the life or the physical or psychological integrity of the person, endangerment of the person, prejudice to the person's freedoms, prejudice to the dignity of the person, prejudice to the personality, placing minors in danger, or prejudicing property provided for by Sections .... of the Criminal Code, the offences of illegal medical or pharmaceutical practice provided for by Sections ... of the Code of Public Health, and the offences of deceptive advertisement, frauds and falsifications provided for by Sections ... of the Consumer Code."

If I'm reading it correctly, the subject is "Any assocation" through "defend public rights and freedoms", the verb phrase is "can ... exercise the recognized civil party rights" through the end of the passage, and the adverbial phrase is "at the occasion of acts" through "psychological or physical subjection". If that parsing is correct, then the translation seems to be simple: "If something would be an illegal violation of the civil rights of a person who was not in any movement or organization, it is still an illegal violation of civil rights even if the person belongs to a movement or organization that claims that his/her membership in the organization gives the organization the right to mete out such treatment to its members as it sees fit." Basically, the civil rights and freedoms of an individual trump the "right" of an organization to deprive individuals of those liberties. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The translation of the legal text, I can understand (if only because I understand the legal text in its original French). What I don't get is This did not condemn the French legislation for protecting freedom, which Section 2-17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows. First, perhaps this should read They did not condemn the French legislation for failing to protect religious freedom. Then, what is the relationship with an extract from the law? Apart from that, your interpretation of the law goes far beyond the actual text. :-) David.Monniaux 19:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you should have specified which you meant by "the following paragraph"; I assumed you meant the portion which was a full paragraph and not just a sentence. As for whether an extract from that law deserves to be in here, I think the answer might be "yes", actually. Right now, there's coverage of the law which presents essentially this sequence of events:

• some groups declared their intention to sue to have the law declared in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights;
• that resulted in a rapporteur being appointed to investigate the bill and religious discrimination in France;
• The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe issued a declaration that governments [have] a duty to respect the principles of religious freedom and non-discrimination.'

From including that information and leaving out other information it would be easy to infer the incorrect conclusion, "Aha, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe must have looked at the About-Picard law and found it to be in brazen disrespect of the principles of religious freedom and non-discrimination." The extract from the law helps to counter that mistaken impression. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having now seen your explanation of the law's provisions, however, I find that more effective than the extract was. Not to mention easier to read. =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Legal classifications

What are the countries that have a legal classification of "cults"? David.Monniaux 19:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit by IanB

I will revert the edit, for these reasons:

1. The Intro section needs to be kept short
2. The text can go into its own section, such as "Meaining of cults in Christianity" or moved to the Christian_countercult_movement
3. Biblio material needs to go to the biblio section and not on the body

--Zappaz 01:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those reasons, at best, support refactoring the edit, not reverting it and thus deleting facts. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not a janitor to clean up after other editors.... I have moved the text to Christian_countercult_movement where it belongs. --Zappaz 00:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are not a dictator, to say "This relevant information has been added to the article in a form that I do not find neat enough and therefore it will be removed." I am restoring it to this article, where it belongs. Or would you like to argue why the false impression that "Beginning in the 1980s, a movement among conservative and fundamentalist Christians has sought to expand the meaning of cult" is a better contribution to the article than the true information supported by at least six references that this usage began at least four decades earlier? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you do some useful work and edit these into the article, as well as moving the references to the Biblio section. That would be a useful contribution. I AM CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO DO IT. --Zappaz 21:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also note that the 1940 relates to the Christian counter cult ONLY. That is why I moved the text there. Only thing that was needed is to change "1980" to "late 1940" and provide the wikilink. (Both of which I have done. And you could have done that as well instead of lecturing me and save the aggravation!) --Zappaz 21:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why, Zappaz -- that reference to "why don't you do some useful work" doesn't seem very gracious and kind! Frankly, if I thought the "problems" you identified as a reason to refactor (not delete) the contents of IainB's edit were actually problems of any real severity, then yes, I would look at it as "useful work" to do that refactoring. However, not only do I not view them as problems that severe, I would not even bet a dollar that you do.

As for your unilateral decision that out of all the various parties who discuss "cults" and all the various meanings they have for the term, this one should be shunted off to the Christian countercult movement and all mention of it here omitted -- what a strange, strange attitude for someone who claims to care so deeply about NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar

I am tyring of you Anteaus, really. Do as you please. I prefer to use my time on more constructive stuff than engaging you in these meaningless mini-edit-wars. -- 04:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just read your "kind" request above to for me to shut up. Talk about kind and gracious. Your attitude is so bad, antaeus, so bad, and you are so blind to you own behavior and attitude (worst than that, you feel you are right, omg!) that I do not know what to do other that walk away and leave you alone! --Zappaz 04:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I rather figured that you would focus on the "shut up" rather than the fact that time and time again you have told me "[Point which is highly in disagreement], and you know it!" As I have said, that is only a polite way to accuse someone of lying; each time you say it, you are claiming "It is already established that my side of the debate is the correct one; you will either switch to my side or you are a liar because 'I am right and you know it!'" I'm not sure why you think it's so much more acceptable to be blatantly disrespectful and uncivil just by avoiding phrases like "shut up" and why you accuse me of being "blind to my own behavior and attitude" when you have focused on me telling you "don't call me a liar" and ignored, y'know, your calling me a liar. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

France - conclusion

I removed the conclusion written by Pgreenfinch. Both sides, those that see France's legislation as legitimate and those that see it as an attack on freedom of religion are well persented in a neutral voice in the article. Given the controvesy, in these cases is best to let the readers to make their own conclusions. --Zappaz 22:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Zappaz

Zappaz, yesterday you made massive edits in which you deleted a lot of valuable information, and you rephrased factual information in a manner that changed its implications.

• You changed the first paragraph on the Order of Solar Temple, implying that the reaction was initiated by the French government. Certainly, the emotion was rather in the media and in the people first, then later in the government. The French public does not take its cues from its government.
• You deleted the part on certain groups seeking foreign help and getting the help of the Clinton administration, which was well documented.
• You removed the link to the actual Les sectes en France report. I think that people should be able to read authoritative sources and not rely on the comments by some of the parties involved.

David.Monniaux 07:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"In October 23, 2003 the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) held a conference on Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion in which France and the About-Picard law were seriously criticized."

This statement is quite vague, and I cannot find any reference to this conference on the Web. Who was invited to this conference? On which grounds did they criticize the About-Picard law? David.Monniaux 07:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please be careful when making acussations, Monniaux. Note that I have not deleted a single word from the article. I just did a very necessary edit, added more text (precursor legislation) and re-arranged paragraphs for a better reading.Only think I left our was the link to the report, and that was an honest mistake.--Zappaz 15:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I stand corrected on point #2; the paragraph was moved. My mistake.

Still, I disagreed with some of your edits, which I think added some nuances that were not present in reality, and which painted the French government's actions in sinister tones. For instance, in the case of legislation, you wrote legislation making it easier to prosecute religious organizations was drafted. This carries the idea that this legislation specifically targets religious organizations, whereas the law does not mention religious organizations or religion. Essentially, the law makes it possible, for certain crimes, to prosecute organizations and not only their management.

Some little remark: in English, politeness generally involves not calling people by their family name without preceding it by their first name or some term like "Mr" or "Mrs". David.Monniaux 17:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Monniaux: I have re-edited the text, keeping most of your additions. I have re-written the opening sentence, with the hope that it is closer to NPOV than before. Also added reference about the conference. --Zappaz 20:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I note, however, that according to this page (whose objectivity does not look evident to me), the foremost critics of France were the then US administration (curiously, the current US administration has apparently a very different position on the issue), the Church of Scientology and the Raelian movement. This obviously yields a very different light, and I think that criticism should be attributed to those who make it. David.Monniaux 00:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course... Attribution is the best way to maintain NPOV. Thanks. --Zappaz 01:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Legal responsibility of legal entities

When one readings the About-Picard law, it is evident that most of its dispositions regard the possibility to prosecute legal entities for crimes committed as part of their activities, including, for instance, child abuse. I have just remembered that in the United States, some legal entities of the Catholic Church (probably the equivalent of diocesan associations) have been sued by (former) members who claim they were raped by Catholic priests with a general cover-up from the Catholic hierarchy; some of those priests have already received felony convictions, and some of these associations are required to pay hefty damages, which sometimes endanger them financially.

So I'm wondering how this possibility of US law (or, more probably, of some US state laws) is different from that introduced by About-Picard. David.Monniaux 07:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chirac's comments

President Jacques Chirac has told Mr Clinton that religious freedom will no longer be a subject for bilateral presidential talks, in the light of what has been officially described as "shocking" White House support for Scientologists and Moonies.

Mr. Monniaux: It would be excellent if you can provide a date when President Chirac made these comments, and beyter still if you have a newspaper article we can offer readers access to, in which this is discussed. --Zappaz 18:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)