Talk:Cult

Scientology See also consensus

I'm not contesting that this belongs on the cult page, but it does not belong in the opening paragraphs describing what a cult is. Could someone fix this up? Fllmtlchcb (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted it from the See also section because it is obvious POV...no other single orgonization was on the list but somehow Scientology out ranked the "cultness" of Heavens Gate, the Waco Branch Dividians, Jonestown, Coach purce culture, Star Wars Culture, That crazy group in Russia who locked themselves in a cave, Mormons, Jahova Witnesses, and Dungeons and Dragons (TSR version). The point is, it is already listed on the "list of cults" page which is extensive, and unless we start transcribing that entire list we really shouldn't single out a single orgonization.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Over the recent months a less vocal but possibly larger number of editors have persistently added "Scientology" to the "See also" section. Another possibly smaller group of editors has repeatedly removed it. This is a consensus controversy. From WP:Consensus: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two."

Time for a notability and consensus check.

2008-07-20 Google searches:

43,200 for "scientology is a cult"

13,300 for "Mormons are a cult".

62 for "Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult".

8 for "Star Wars is a cult".

7 for "Branch Davidians are a cult".

2 for "Peoples temple is a cult".

0 "Heavens Gate is a cult"

0 "Dungeons and Dragons is a cult".

Scientology does notably outrank the "cultness" of the other groups in current culture. Scientology has been labeled a cult by several governments, a top-10 news magazine, and so many ordinary citizens that Scientology vandalism at Wikipedia has become a meme. OTOH, Peoples Temple was a cult of vast historic importance even though it gets few Google hits. Both are notable, verifiable, and reportable as cults named by reliable sources.

Notability is also the answer to both the "singling out" and "entire list" issues. Notability reporting for disambiguated encyclopedia articles requires "singling out" which is ok. The idea that "singling out" is a bad thing comes from confusing journalism with the legal principles forbidding selective enforcement of laws. Wikipedia is a form of journalism, not law. "Singling out" is what journalism does.

In the other extreme, an entire list from somewhere else does not have to be transcribed, as that is an anti-editing position. The available publishing space is always limited in some way; therefore, one of the most important functions of editing is selection of what is to be published.

If so many editors want a Scientology See also, why not accept that as consensus? Milo 20:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to defend scientology, but if what a google search returns on a phrase helps define the standard -

41,100 for "apple cult" (2,560 for "apple is a cult")

36,600 for "obama cult" (7,770 for "obama is a cult")

28,200 for "christianity is a cult"

--Insider201283 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The first half of your first two aren't parallel to my searches. I deliberately chose the "...is a cult" search because posters of it seem to be rhetorically certain that they want to make an emphatic statement of a group's cultism.

However, the third is a result that I hadn't previously seen. Its origin was also probably the cover of a major news magazine, which made reference to Christianity's origin as a cult – though they meant an ancient "cultus" of veneration, not one of the seven-some homonyms of c-u-l-t coined 1920+.

The point of my top-hit Google search is another characteristic in a profile-of-characteristics suggesting consensus change in See-alsoing of Scientology. By comparison there aren't flocks of editors adding "Apple", "Obama", or even the exact title "Christianity" to the "See also" section. Milo 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of the first couple of pages does not at all support your thesis with regards to "christianity is a cult" being a response to a newspaper article. My point is that your methodology for deciding what should be listed as a cult or not is lacking. I'd note that on sheer numbers alone, Scientology seems to have good claims to be considered a mainstream religion. Adherents.com lists them as 22 on it's list of major world religions[1] --Insider201283 (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Christianity is a cult" is just an Google phrase sidebar not at issue here. (Christian cult is already in the article.)

I wrote "origin" which could include a possibly untraceable rumor or meme, not just "response" to that specific story. To trace the origin of a meme, one would need to at least study a statistically significant sample of the 28,200. I also wrote "probably"; I could be wrong. Milo 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two different arguments in play here. The first is whether any specific cult should be mentioned in the see-also section. The second is whether scientology is a good enough example of a cult to be chosen as an example if we want one in the see also section. I would maintain that there is no reason to include a single example of a cult in the see also link - the article text has mentions of most of the important cults as it is and room for more - any further examples and or discussion should be included in the main text in my opinion. Secondly I don't think scientology would be the best example of a cult, partly because it is controversial to call it a cult and it is not widely agreed that it is the case and secondly because even if it is a cult it does have have some characteristics that are not in line with the sociological definition of a cult. A better example would be a movement about which there is wide agreement that it is a cult and one that conforms better to the sociological definition.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Insider201283 (12:19): "deciding what should be listed as a cult"

I didn't.

I'm describing evidence for what I seem to observe as a major consensus shift, for one and only one particular "See also" listing – singled out due to a major new global notability. For example, I went on a sidebar search and got so many unexpected Scientology-as-cult mentions (26%) that I had to specifically exclude it to continue the search.

Maunus (12:48): "The first is whether any specific cult should be mentioned in the see-also section." ... "The second is whether scientology is a good enough example of a cult to be chosen as an example if we want one in the see also section."

Those are both a normal science approach using the old consensus paradigm. What I'm possibly observing is a paradigm shift of consensus, that eventually trumps normal science, establishing a new paradigm. A new consensus paradigm would be that both of your arguments are done deals for this one particular case. In other words, Scientology may have been singled out for special notability coverage in "See also" by a new editors' consensus.

Scientology may not be a good enough sociological example for you, but it could be that the majority of the present global generation of students know of, or at least care about no other cult in the populist sense.[2] The global citizens' populist definition of c-u-l-t is probably the most significant view, however much sociological scholars may disdain it.

Maunus (12:48): "not widely agreed that it is the case"

Has the world moved on since you last investigated this issue? Maybe you don't watch celebrity television coverage, and missed the now-suppressed video that touched off the 2008 global Scientology protests by Anonymous.[3] See a casual transcript of one key section (find "hojoki"). Then do this Google search [4] to see that many others got the same impression.

Milo 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You forget that this is an encyclopedia and as such committed to the current "normal" scientific consensus - untill a change in wikipedia policies is affected no "paradigm change" will affect that. If a consensus of editors decide that it is a good idea to single out scientology in the see also section it can be included - but up until now you are arguing alone. And the silent masses you seem to believe are supporting you apparently choose to remain silent.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you didn't grasp my application of paradigm shift to this Cult-See-also consensus process, rather than science per se. See Paradigm shift#Other uses

Maunus (07:22): "committed to the current "normal" scientific consensus"

Committed, no; unlike Evowiki I'm unaware of a Wikipedia policy commitment to science. Science-oriented editors usually have that notion, simply because it's the typical outcome of NPOV. The most significant test of such commitment failed in the 2005 proposal to selectively equate neutral-point-of-view with science-point-of-view. (See Wikipedia:SPOV)

Maunus (07:22): "up until now you are arguing alone" ... "silent masses"

Could you please put more effort into following this debate? That issue was covered in my first post. Milo (20:18): From WP:Consensus: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two." That means a consensus can form without a talk page discussion.

Maunus (07:22): "you seem to believe are supporting you"

Straw man fallacy. I was passive about the previous consensus, and I don't recall making a "See also" edit for either position. As I wrote, my actual position is (Milo 21:05): "I'm describing evidence for what I seem to observe..."

I'm pointing out that what the "silent masses" of editors are doing might be a consensus formation, and linked to the cultural news that may rationally explain why they are doing it. You don't seem to like what they are doing, so I get the impression that you are also engaged in a Shooting the messenger fallacy – because I raised an issue equivalent to an elephant in the room. Perhaps that is unscientific of you? Milo 15:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think it belongs because we don't list every single suspected cult on the see also section. by making an exclusive exception to one or two groups, it adds an increadably heavy weight on those groups beeing labled as cults. no one is arguing against Jonestown, I do not think there is anyone who believes that they do not belong. Scientology, however is contested. right now I think you are the only one arguing for this milo (on the discussion board). and the multiple unnamed editors who have added it I believe did it in bad faith (to discredit the orgonization rather than inform the article). are you fixed in your stance, or are you willing to discuss this possiblilityCoffeepusher (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"it adds an increadably heavy weight on those groups beeing labled as cults"

You might have persuaded me of that at one time, but not since Wikipedia became the world's largest pro-cult propaganda outlet, following the AfD of "List of groups referred to as cults". One important reason for this is probably that Wikipedia itself is a cult, and so is inherently cult-friendly. Another is that relatively normal people are trying to control relatively obsessed people, and that's a Sisyphus task. Still another is that Arbcom simply shrugged off pro-cult propaganda that horribly embarrassed Wikipedia in the press. Jimbo being caught cheating further encouraged some group members who already cheat whenever they can.

"you are the only one arguing for this"

I shouldn't be the only one. Consensus-by-edit is in the guiderules. I pointed it out because it's so obvious. The only other example that I recall is the IP consensus by repeatedly added spoiler tags, that six pyramidal elitists at the top of the Wikipedia cult won't allow. They repeatedly cheated to get their way, basically just to show the IPs and readers who owns the encyclopedia (them).

"multiple unnamed editors who have added it I believe did it in bad faith (to discredit the orgonization rather than inform the article)."

Think about the effect of what you are saying. You're saying in effect that Scientology has such a bad set of facts that to merely create a link to the supposedly neutral Wikipedia Scientology article is to discredit that group. Wow. You're saying in effect that the regular editors at Cult should take steps to prevent IP editors from pointing readers to notice and read the facts at the Scientology article, apparently because Scientology facts are so terrible that no one can read that article without fear and loathing. I doubt that you actually believe that, so why allow it to be inferred?

"are you fixed in your stance"

As previously noted, I don't feel all that strongly about it. Once I get regular editors here to admit that they are willing to cheat the guiderules and suppress the IP consensus-by-edit to get Scientology looking good again, I'll have more evidence to prove that Wikipedia has became the world's largest pro-cult propaganda outlet. Milo 09:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I am a little confused. so you are doing this to prove a point? Im not trying to get into metawiki with a good dose of politics and hurt feelings, Im just pointing out that if we add Scientology to the "see also" section, what we are in fact saying (to all those who are unaware of this discussion and just want to learn about a cult) that Scientology, according to the research done by the editors of this page, is a textbook example of a cult. this is why I have no problem with Jonestown, it is a textbook cult. so is Scientology a textbook cult?Coffeepusher (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"are doing this to prove a point?"

I'm doing this because consensus-by-edit is in the guiderules, and this is exactly the situation covered by that guiderule. Due to very bad experience with the spoiler tag issue, I feel strongly about the correctness of upholding consensus-by-edit. If upheld, it limits the insularity of insider editors, who as previously noted have taken on an encyclopedia-wide pro-cult bias.

"Jonestown, it is a textbook cult"

Just to show how slippery these "textbook" judgments can get, I have some good arguments that Peoples Temple was not a cult until after it left the United States. You might find that you agree with much of the social gospel that Jones preached (inclusion of the poor and racially discriminated). Also, blaming an insane man for his illness and its consequences has philosophical problems of the sort discussed in the AA community.

"so is Scientology a textbook cult?"

That's not a judgment that any regular Cult editor needs to make, but under the standard that you have proposed ("if we add Scientology to the "see also" section, what we are in fact saying ... that Scientology, according to the research done by the editors of this page, is a textbook example of a cult."), many IP editors did reach that consensus.

As I understand the editorial consensus guiderules, I'm supposed to either join a strong consensus or stand aside. I'd say that I'm standing aside on the judgment itself, but strongly upholding IP editors' right to make that consensus judgment by edit. Milo 22:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

so you have no other reason to uphold this other than that the masses tell you to?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No other reason? That's a stunning caricaturization of my nuanced position.

But the basic principle of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, closely followed by the principle of consensus among those who do.

Do you agree with these principles? If not, why are you editing here? Milo 00:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with consensus, not blind rule by force or wikilawyaring...or editing to prove a point. is it a charicaturization of your position, I asked if you thought that scientology was a textbook cult, and your answer was that lots of IP's said so, and that while you where personally staying out of the actuall dscussion, you where maintaining the force of the consensus without explaining the details of the edit.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You have placed yourself in a bind.

1. You agree with consensus, but not "blind rule by force".
2. "Blind rule by force", and the collective edits of many non-discussing IP editors, are apparently indistinguishable concepts.
3. So, consensus-by-edit guiderules apparently authorize, or at least accept, "blind rule by force".
4. You don't agree with "blind rule by force", therefore, you apparently don't agree with that kind of consensus.

It sounds like you either must pursue the slow week-to-week edit war with IP editors which has been going on for months now, or need to stand aside of a by-edit type of consensus with which you don't agree. Milo 04:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition

I would define a cult as any group who's beliefs are based on faith without tangible evidence supporting those beliefs. Eav (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Another one

In general, translation of the pejorative connotation from modern English to use of the same term in other languages can be misleading as they (e.g. French) may retain the original meaning. Meaning? Rumiton (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is supposed to draw attention to the fact that "culte" in French does not have pejorative connotations, but has retained its meaning of cult in the sense of religious worship (as in the "cult of St. Mary"). In French, the word with the pejorative connotation is "secte." I agree this is not apparent from the sentence as it stands. Jayen466 10:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems senseless. I think the editor is trying to make clear that words in foreign languages that looks like the English word may not carry the negative connotation. I would think that a professional translator understands perfectly what cult means in English and when translating will always use une secte, for example, when translating into French. An person unfamiliar with French may use culte, but why would someone ignorant of French, or any other language, be translating in the first palce? It should be deleted. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't seem to make much sense. But I think WRT translated statements there is ignorance and there is mischief. The French government "List of cults" that came out some years ago and has since been de-officialised has caused a lot of the latter on Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it from the article. Cheers.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in a discussion going on here [[5]] on Non-English sources. Rumiton (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

haha

a cult is a system of religous worshipers Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.66.212 (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Email address for Axiom Books

Copied from User talk:Will Beback

* Brear, David: 'The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult', Axiom Books, London, 2005, axiombooks@wanadoo.fr

Will, you removed the email address 09:03, 22 September 2008, but it seems to be legitimate. I'm fascinated by the title claim, and I'm hoping someone will obtain and review a copy to see if he is actually onto something.

I did extensive research perhaps two months ago when this book was added. I found an article by the author, IIRC on the subject of his second book. He believes his brother is a financial ruin victim of Amway-as-cult. I recall my conclusion that email address (in France) is currently the only way to obtain the first book.

Is there a guiderule against an email address to obtain a limited edition book, centrally related to the article but not used as a reliable source? (Please reply here if desired) Milo 13:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The book is self-published and was added to the article by the author, both of which make it of dubious merit. The claimed "2nd book" he has been hawking around for years and is still not published. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How do we know it's self-published? Do we have a source for Brear owning Axiom Books? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/. I checked it back in July. Axiom Books was setup by Brear and Lottick (who also apparently wrote the forward to the new, as yet unpublished Amway book). Incorporated 2000, struck off in 2007. It'll cost you a couple of bucks to download the docs to confirm. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, a website with hours:

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/

"Access to the service is closed"

"Companies House is available from Monday to Saturday 07:00 - 12 Midnight UK Time"

←But ok, assuming Insider201283's research is correct, Brear was a part owner of the Axiom Books publishing business. That's not quite classic self-publishing, but it's similar.

Next question is, even if Axiom Books is too much like self-publishing, does it matter in an external book list? Since 'The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult' is not used as a reliable source, the standards for listing are looser. I didn't find any guiderules for external books, but here's a guiderule that might be parallel:

Wikipedia:External links#Links to be considered: 4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Taking author David Brear at face value, he has two knowledgeable sources:

1. Brear has long-term observed his brother's experience with what he and many others believe to be a pyramidal business cult, possibly the world's largest; and
2. his former Axiom Books business partner and introduction writer, Dr. Edward Lottick, is a heavyweight in international cultic studies. (Lottick is a physician, medical inventor, 1993 co-winner of the John G. Clark Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Cultic Studies, was on Board of Directors of an International Cultic Studies Association, and was President of the old Cult Awareness Network. See Edward Lottick. Dr. Lottick became internationally notable because of his family's tragedy described in the May 6, 1991, Time Magazine article: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power.)

Dr. Lottick, the honored cultic studies expert, has endorsed book author Brear to the point of going into the publishing business with him. By deduction from professional medical ethics and business logic, Lottick has read Brear's book 'The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult', approves of its contents, and recommends it to be read by the public.

As an experienced Wikipedia cult topics editor, it seems to me the above are good reasons to list this as an external book. I may or not agree with Dr. Lottick's endorsement once I read what Brear thinks are those universal characterics of a cult, but with such a good endorsement, I think most people interested in this topic would like to know what Brear has to say. At the least, Brear might become a potential candidate for the cult checklist subtopic. No one checklist is perfect, but an academic study of the increasing number of them could yield a new scientific profile of what is a populist cult.

Wikipedia:External links calls for a summary of such facts to be presented with a link. With an email address for Axiom Books, a book listing becomes more similar to an External link.

That returns to the topic of the Axiom Books email address. If the author's heavyweight endorsement is established to motivate WP's external listing and reader obtaining of a book, is listing of an internet email address substantially different from listing an internet web link? Given that the email address is the only way to obtain the book, does it make sense to list the book without it? If the email address is somehow unacceptable, would a personal website link labeled Axiom Books be any better?? Milo 02:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, without getting in to the silly "business pyramid cult" rubbish and how one persons experience with one person out of tens of millions could make anyone remotely an authority, the fact remains this is a self-published book, and the author, not a third party, attempted to add it to the wikipedia article. (As a side note, that direct experience with 1 person is 1 more than 3 other supposed "cult" authorities have had with Amway, but that's another topic!). Anyway, if we are to consider it under "external link" guidelines, then it would appear to fail Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Insider201283 (01:02): "...if we are to consider it under "external link" guidelines, then it would appear to fail Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest" Since that section discusses only website links, your position presumes the Axiom Books email address should be treated the same as an External link to a website. I request Will to join our consensus on that point.

Insider201283 (01:02): "...the author, not a third party, attempted to add it to the wikipedia article." Not a problem.

Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest: If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.

Whomever added the original, I can delete it and recreate, as I noted previously, a commented version guided by External links: "Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view." Milo 05:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I question any self-published source or book as an addition to an article, but especially when the person adding it is the author (smacks of self-promotion) or hasn't even read the book (smacks of POV). Wikipedia in general frowns upon self-published material of any nature. If a book is to be listed, then it should have it's ISBN number noted. If it doesn't have an ISBN number, then it's notability is questionable. As it is, the book is listed in the bibliography for the article, but is not referenced at all and was added to the listing by the author. Clearly this is a questionable approach to editing! --Insider201283 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Insider201283 (19:06): "I question any self-published source or book" ... "Wikipedia in general frowns upon self-published material of any nature." Also not a problem. Your own research established that the book was published by a commercial corporation of whom you named two known owners. But, ok, if we pierce the corporate shield, the book was co-published by corporate owners Brear and Lottick.

In either case, the book is not literally self-published. Accordingly, you will need to drop claims suggesting that Wikipedia in general frowns upon this situation, since, as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia guidelines do not discuss this situation.

Insider201283 (19:06): "notability is questionable" I can locate no notability guiderule for a corporate or co-published book listed with an External link/email address.

Insider201283 (19:06): "the book is listed in the bibliography for the article, but is not referenced at all" I can locate no guiderule that all or any books in the bibliography must be article references. However, as I previously noted (Milo 05:41), your position presumes the Axiom Books email address should be treated the same as an External link to a website. So, these may be reasons to move the book and its email address to the External links section.

As an External link, the significant reason for listing the book remains: Wikipedia:External links#Links to be considered: "4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." I previously listed the knowledgeable sources (Milo 02:38).

Insider201283 (19:06): "hasn't even read the book (smacks of POV)" I've read as much of the book as I can – the title – "The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult". The title claim, if true, is a significant claim in cultic studies (see the Cult article for why).

I want to read more, but I can't afford to buy it. The next best thing is to recommend that others who can afford it, read it and review it. If several neutral reviews of the book turn up significant problems with it, I have no problem with eventually dropping it from the list.

Understand that this listing isn't merely my personal point of view. My recommendation is supported by Dr. Lottick's co-publication of the book – his international cultic studies prestige and notability are behind the book. Milo 06:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've little knowledge of Lottick, but having had numerous online conversations with Brear, his endorsing of Brear does not bode well for a positive view of Lottick. Indeed, a brief review finds Lottick appears to have little "prestige" outside the rather insular and self-reinforcing anti-cult movement. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Many if not most people in the anti-cult movement have been scarred by family or personal tragedy. As a result, I hesitate to judge anything other than their work. Since Jonestown, Solar Temple, and Aum Shinrikyo, governments have constructively concluded that their work is important.

Dr. Lottick is famously included, due to his son's death described in the May 6, 1991, Time Magazine article, media coverage of the decade-long multi-million dollar libel lawsuit that followed, and Lottick's alignment with Time Inc.'s winning side.

As a matter of recent PR image, the 2007-2008 public response to global protests by Anonymous for Project Chanology has strongly affirmed Dr. Lottick's early judgments. As the saying goes, you can't argue with success.

←Here's my draft for an External link entry to replace the one in Bibliography:

• The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult; Brear, David; Axiom Books, London, 2005. Limited edition book co-published by anti-cult authority Edward Lottick, 1993 co-winner of the John G. Clark Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Cultic Studies.

Milo 04:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, someone having "been scarred by family or personal tragedy" with regard a topic immediately puts their objectivity in extreme doubt. The anti-cult movement suffers greatly from this issue, with this being a common background of a number of folk considered "authorities" within the field. The so called "cult apologists" on the other hand seem primarily to have academic backgrounds and in another field would normally be considered far more authoritive. IMO there's too much internally-reinforced opinion and subjectivity accepted around this whole topic area on wikipedia. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Insider201283 (15:07): ""been scarred by family or personal tragedy" with regard a topic immediately puts their objectivity in extreme doubt." Since religious or well-educated people can be relatively objective following family or personal tragedy, simple doubt is more reasonable. However, Edward Lottick in particular is a doctor trained in medical ethics, so WP presumes that he treats facts objectively, and ethically separates facts from his and others' subjective opinions.

The important question for Wikipedia references is not objectivity. Rather it's do they have some process for checking their facts, which allows Wikipedia articles to cite them as reliable sources?

But, External links do not have to be reliable sources nor objective (though ELs can't be grossly extremist except in articles about themselves). ELs only need to provide a knowledgeable resource, and be listed with a comment indicating the EL's POV. My link draft above has provided that comment as "...co-published by anti-cult authority...", which together with the title make the anti-cult POV clear.

Insider201283 (15:07): "The anti-cult movement suffers greatly from this issue, with this being a common background of a number of folk considered "authorities" within the field." I'd agree that the cultic studies academics are assumed to be fact-objective, and have the fewest biases of subjective opinion. However, the authoritative counter-cultists and anti-cultists may be expected to state subjectively harsh and negative opinions of cults, while also stating facts objectively. They are sensitive to the loss of authority they would suffer if they did not do so.

Insider201283 (15:07): "there's too much internally-reinforced opinion and subjectivity accepted around this whole topic area on wikipedia." That's probably a typical impression among new editors of WP's controversial topics, and the cult topics are officially controversial. Milo 07:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Steven Alan Hassan / B.I.T.E.

I removed a COPYVIO from what appeared to be a self-published reference - but according to the next editor's edit summary that source looks like a good one even though self-published.

I don't know enough about the topic to do the rewrite, so I'm posting this here- if someone wants to re-add the section with non-copyvio text, I will not revert based on the use of that source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)