Talk:Opposition to cults and new religious movements/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Opposition to cults and new religious movements. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I agree with user:Fossa that the long section about Scientology makes the article unbalanced. Andries 14:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

One might replace it with a section explaining that the internet is a platform for cult criticism, and link to the "scientology vs. the internet" definition. But "just delete" is not a solution. Especially considering that Fossa has a history of vandalism both in the german and in the english "scientology vs. the internet" definition. --Tilman 15:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you learn this strictly ad hominem argumentation at a Scientology course? Do NOT delete the merger request, until the discussion has finished. Fossa_?! 15:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What I said is a fact. Your "question" is a personal attack. --Tilman 15:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually both your comments are in violation of Civility. I am not trying to be rude. Also Tilman, revealing personal information about another member violates Civility. Can we all just try to improve the article. This bickering reflects badly on Wikipeida. This is what I am learning about Civility. John196920022001 11:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops! My reply was a little late for this one! It's late where I live, I am going to bed John196920022001 11:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't even have a "history of vandalism", that's just your POV interpretation of me removing dubious statements from Wikipedia. Fossa_?! 15:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You have certainly a history of blocks in the german wikipedia because of your behaviour. --Tilman 15:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I have a "history on the German Wikipedia": I am a controversial figure, but not one that commits vandalism. Fossa_?! 15:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if anything it's the very long sections like "Opposition to cults: a taxonomy by professor Hadden" and "The APA, Margaret Singer and the brainwashing theories". I definitely support a template marking the article as "unbalanced". Tanaats 16:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The term 'Apostate' is pejorative - and is limited to the Christian faith. "former member" or similar would be much more appropriate in the context of this article. Sfacets 00:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It us widely used related to NRMs, see Apostasy#In_alleged_cults_and_new_religious_movements_.28NRMs.29. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is widely used only by NRM theorists, who have given it pejorative connotations by the way in which they usually discuss "apostates". Tanaats 00:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Using, without any qualification, the standard jargon of proponents of one POV (the NRM theorists) introduces lots of POV into the article. Tanaats 00:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You delete text that has been there for years, and you ask me to discuss my reversion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, things change... Wouldn't it be better to employ a less historicaly and religiously charged word? Sfacets 00:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, it is an error to implicitly assume that all cults are religious in nature. Tanaats 00:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all, but more that 95% of groups referred to as "cults" are religious in nature. See List of groups referred to as cults. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So it's inaccurate to imply that 100% are religious. Tanaats 01:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If the word "apostate" is charged, so it is the word "cult", the term anti-cultist, the term cult apologist, and may others. But these are widely used terms, and it is not for an encyclopedia not to describe these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If I were to start placing the appellation "the cult apologist" in front of the name of each NRM theorist appearing in an article, you would object. I object to "apostate" in the same way. Tanaats 01:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Cult" is widely used, however 'apostate' is not (as) commonly used in relation to NRM's/"cults". Sfacets 01:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Even in the article on Apostasy, it states: "Apostasy is generally not a self-definition: very few former believers call themselves apostates and they generally consider this term to be a pejorative." The NRM theorists who advanced the use of this term were westerners, and only added to the sense it is pejorative among those they were referring to by the way it was subsequently used. Cult is common although NRM is prefered if there is a religious belief involved. Best to caveat use of such terms by clarifying what is considered pejorative when used. Ex-member makes more sense to me --Dseer 06:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, are we at the point where I should start DR? Tanaats 21:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose using "critical former member" when the discussion is representing the opinions of cult critics, and using "apostate" when representing the opinions of NRM scholars. When there is no context, I propose using "critical former members" as being value-neutral. To clue the reader in on why this is being done I propose adding a section near the top titled "On the use of the term 'apostate'" with this text...

There is dispute about the use of the term "apostate".

The term is in common use among scholars of new religious movements to describe those who leave their groups and then begin criticizing them. [this could be expanded]

Discussing the use of that term and a related term "defector", cult critic Michael Langone states "Although, strictly speaking, these terms may not have been intended to be value judgments or statistical generalizations about the truth claims of critics (Bromley, 1998), they clearly came to be perceived as such in both camps."^[1]

I would also add this footnote to further reference the "(Bromley, 1988)" reference above: Bromley, D. G. (Ed.). (1998). The politics of religious apostasy: The role of apostates in the transformation of religious movements. Westport, CT; London: Praeger. Tanaats 21:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And I would like to add this sentence to the end of the Langone quote as another reason why cult critics have a problem with "apostate": "Cult critics also do not limit the definition of 'cult" to include only religious groups.<ref>[http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_cultsqa.htm Cults: Questions and Answers] Michael Langone (Retrieved Dec 2006) "Many systems for classifying cults have been advanced. A straightforward breakdown has been suggested by Dr. Margaret Singer, who observes the following types of cults: eastern religious, Christian abberational, satanic, occult/witchcraft/voodoo, spiritualist, racist, Zen and Sino/Japanese philosophical-mystical, flying saucer and outer space, psychotherapy, mass therapy or transformational training, political, new age, commercial, communal/self-help."</ref> Tanaats 01:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I made some edits to get things rolling. Tanaats 18:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Disaffected" has pejorative denotations[1] and connotations and should therefore not be used to describe former group members as it introduces POV. Tanaats 00:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see what is wrong with using "disaffected", but if you insist, we can remove that on the basis that it is not a term used in scholarly books/articles about a subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I feel that I must insist we change a word that has negative denotations, e.g. "discontented and disloyal, as toward the government or toward authority", "Resentful and rebellious, especially against authority", "discontented as toward authority".[2] I propose saying "Critical former members" rather than "disaffected individuals". Tanaats 01:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put a "POV" template on the article. The article is almost entirely from the POV of NRM theorists. Tanaats 01:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT, if you believe it to be such.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm starting to. WP:SOFIXIT redirects to WP:BOLD which is what I was trying to be when I stirred up tonight's flurry. We can take this a few things at a time, beginning with the "apostate" discussion already in progress. Tanaats 03:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)/

Why should the POV tag come down? Does citing WP:SOFIXIT provide sufficient cause to take it down? We'd have to get rid of most of the "unbalanced" and "POV" and etc. tags in all of Wikipedia if this is true and the word gets out. Tanaats 03:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Look Tanaats, you have been adding these tags to every article that does not fit your POV. So I must resort to deleting these tags and asking you to say what exactly is wrong with the article. POV tags are not weapons to assert our POVs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The POV dig is a sword that can cut both ways, and actually I think you may be exaggerating just a bit. I put an "uncited" tag up elsewhere which you very nicely explained was totally inappropriate for that article, but where else did I put a tag up that you objected to? Serious question, I've forgotten if I did. Regardless, here's an off the cuff start at explaining what I see as the article's strong POV:

• It uses the jargon of NRM theorists without explaining that these words were coined by only one of the POV's involved in the "Opposition" question.
• Statements like "Opposition to NRMs grew..." introduce distortion by making it sound as though the cult critics oppose all "NRMs", when in fact they only oppose that subset which is deemed destructive and dangerous.
• The statement "Cult watching groups (CWGs) disseminate information about purported cults with the intent of changing public and government perception of them and changing public policy regarding New religious movements." has a couple of problems:

• It uses NRM jargon without explaining that the term is actually a "concept" (as Fossi calls it in the ACM context) proposed by NRM theorists.
• Cult critics aren't interested in changing public policy regarding NRMs. They are only interested in that subset yada yada yada (see above).

• The section titled "The anti-cult movement" has the same problems I was discussing on ACM, to wit it implicity assumes the existence of such an animal.
• This statement is totally bogus: "One of the characteristics of the ACM is their tendency to make general complaints about "cults" based on accusations of organizational hierarchical structure, charismatic leadership, thought reform, mind control, and brainwashing, instead of focusing on specific problems and abuses that take place in some of these cults".
• This statement leaves an unbalanced impression on the reader: "A 1983 amicus curiæ brief [2] by the American Psychological Association states that the brainwashing hypotheses are "little more than uninformed speculation, based on skewed data" and that "[t]he coercive persuasion theory ... is not a meaningful scientific concept". However, that brief was later withdrawn [3].
• "Anti-cult members" assumes that there is an "Anti-cult" to be a member of.
• "who often hold anti-NRM sentiment" is bogus because of its overgeneralization as described a couple of times above.
• A big section like "Opposition to cults: a taxonomy by professor Hadden" needs quite a bit of balance from the cult critic POV.
• Much more page space is given to the POV of NRM theory, than is given to the POV of those people who are the actual "opponents".
• (As a sidenote, hopefully we will take the major part of the DIMPAC thing out of this article when a main DIMPAC article is created.)
• The heading "Pressure from cult-watching groups" is POV in that "pressure" has pejorative connotations. It also implies the appropriateness of the CWG label.
• We have to look for and remove OR such as "It is very often the case that the only view the public gets of a new religious movement, controversial group or purported cult is the commonly negative, and often sensationalized reports by the media."
• As for the "Opposition in the media" section, I am musing about the boildown you gave to my quotes on Margaret Singer giving a counterpoint to the distortions made about the DIMPAC controversy by NRM theorists. I think this section is being given undue weight in the article.
• Now that I think of it, NRM theorists are given undue weight in the "Academic Study" section. Or else the cult critics need to be given "equal weight".

The article is practically owned by the POV of NRM theory. What "cult critic" POV is represented is lost in the flood. Tanaats 04:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think that the article needs improvement, then in good faith engage in discussions. Adding a POV tag does not help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So POV tags are always inappropriate when an editor has a reasonable position that there is POV? Serious question. If not then when, if ever, are they appropriate? I have what I think is a very reasonable argument that the article as it stands currently is strongly POV, and isn't the current state of the article what the POV tag is meant to apply to? Tanaats 04:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You keep talking about NRM theorists, but I do not know what you are referring to. If there are passages in the article that need fixing, do so, but please do not delete any long-standing material that is fully sourced. As for DIMPAC and Singer, see that article talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am truly curious as to why a "POV" tag is inappropriate and this is a serious question. In fact, the neutrality of this article is disputed. Isn't that the purpose of the tag? Is it true that on any article on which that tag is placed, all that is required is to cite WP:SOFIXIT and that will be sufficient justification to take the tag down? Tanaats 17:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am just raising a concern about a pattern I have observed. You and other editors keep adding {{POV}} and {{unbalanced}} to a myriad of long-standing articles because it contradicts their POVs rather than being non-compliant with policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A few responses:

• A serious question: Where have I put up an inappropriate tag other than at Cult (as I recall) which was clearly done out of ignorance? I may have done so, but if so I've truly forgotten.
• An observation: I am not responsible for what other editors do; if there is an "ACM" at WP then I have not been invited to join.
• An opinion: Again, the implicit charge that I or anyone else is inappropriately trying to introduce a POV is a sword that can cut both ways. It is a matter of judgement, and in my judgement the article is incredibly POV as it stands now and I am trying to introduce both accuracy and balance. I believe that I am pushing for NPOV and that you are pushing your POV. The question of who is right and who is wrong about this is a matter of judgement, not a matter of compliance with policy:::
• An opinion: The fact that an article is long-standing does not ipso facto make it NPOV, nor does it make my assertion that it is POV of necessity "wrong".
• An opinion: In fact, the neutrality of this article is "disputed" which AFAIK is all that the tag means, and therefore AFAIK the tag is appropriate until the dispute is resolved. Tanaats 18:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"I believe that I am pushing for NPOV and that you are pushing your POV". May I ask how do you assess what my POV is? May I also ask how do you manage to talk about other people's POVs while ignoring yours? Best would be if you avoid making such value judgments, and focus on improving the article. Note that as a long-standing article, this article has enjoyed the contributions of hundreds of editors before you. A little show of respect for the work of others is expected. Yes, articles can always be improved in Wikipedia and I welcome your contributions, with the caveat that you will have to provide good material backed up by reputable sources for any new material added, and that any deletion of material that is properly sourced will be certainly challenged. Having said that, the tag will be removed unless you contribute to fixing whatever is that you consider to be in violation of NPOV policy within a reasonable period of time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

• Regarding "May I ask how do you assess what my POV is?": That is a bit inconsistent of you since you say above "You and other editors keep adding {{POV}} and {{unbalanced}} to a myriad of long-standing articles because it contradicts their POVs rather than being non-compliant with policy." I was merely responding to the fact that you had, prior to my own comment, made an implicit assessment of the POV of others. So, I thought, if you can have an opinion about what someone's POV is why can't I? I was following your example and responding to your charge. I wouldn't have done that in another context.
• Regarding "A little show of respect for the work of others is expected": Ok, I take it that you are telling me that it is inherently inappropriate to put up a "POV" tag on a long-standing article that has had a lot of editors work on it. I didn't know that, I thought that if the text of the tag was accurate then it was OK to put it up.
• Thank you (seriously) for welcoming my contributions. Regarding your caveat, yes I do understand that those are the rules. One thing that the rules don't cover explicitly, AFAIK, is whether or not the unqualified use of a particular disputed term is POV. I guess we'll have to discuss particular instances of what I deem to be such usages. Tanaats 19:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Regarding the tag itself, I'll start chipping away gradually. If you don't think I move fast enough, then I guess we can discuss that then. Tanaats 19:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, when I say "the tag was accurate" above, I didn't mean that it my assertion that the article is POV was "accurate", since that is a matter of dispute. I meant that it was accurate that the neutrality of the article is in fact disputed.) Tanaats 19:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and edit the "disaffected" references, since I think we've reached agreement on that. I think that the next major order of business is the "Apostate" dispute above, so I'll continue the discussion there. Tanaats 21:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll also make other edits that I think you won't object to under WP:BRD. If you do object just revert and we'll discuss. Tanaats 21:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll stop for now in order to see how what I've done so far sits with everyone. Tanaats 22:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So far, so good. I made additional edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree there are problems with this article. I will contribute to the discussion in order to work with consensus. Vassyana 09:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this sentence: "All academics, including Melton, agree that some groups have been problematic and sometimes very problematic but they disagree to what extent new religious movements in general are harmful": Is there really seen to be a dispute about "NRMs in general"? There is no dispute on the side of cult critics that I have ever come across, they all assert that only a subset of NRMs are harmful, never that NRMs in general are harmful.

Is this a strongly held position? Or can I take out "but they disagree to what extent new religious movements in general are harmful"? Tanaats 22:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I made an edit that I feel better states the facts. Tanaats 19:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is different. The original version is inaccurate. Both sides agree that it would be inaccurate to say that NRMs "in general" are harmful. They don't disagree at all about this. I'll put a "fact" tag on it for now. Tanaats 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Try and word it in a different way, so that it is neutral and without a presumption of harm. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You are quite right. How about "All academics, including Melton, agree that some groups have been problematic and sometimes very problematic but they disagree as to what extent new religious movements in general might be harmful.

The heading "Pressure from cult-watching groups" only describes a single sentence in the section. The section is mostly about the term "cult apologist", and the first paragraph doesn't fit with that. So I'm not sure what to propose for a different heading. Any ideas? Tanaats 00:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputes within NRM studies, or, Conflict between NRM opposition and scholars ... just my thoughts. Yours? Vassyana 09:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Upon re-reading the section I think that...

• The first paragraph doesn't fit with the other paragraphs at all. It should be merged into "Academic Studies."
• After removal of the first paragraph, the section is about the controversy over the term "cult apologist."

I propose naming the section "Disputes about so-called 'cult apologism'". Tanaats 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Vassyana 20:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to (for example) "Other opposition comes from traditional religion, the anti-cult movement, the Christian countercult movement, skeptics, and former members (sometimes referred in literature as apostates)" as used in the first paragraph... The use of "anti-cult movement" without qualification implicity assumes that there actually is an anti-cult movement which is a subject of dispute.

I propose something like "Other opposition comes from traditional religion, secular cult critics (sometimes referred to in literature as the anti-cult movement), the Christian countercult movement, skeptics, and former members (sometimes to referred to in literature as apostates).

If we can agree on an edit for this sentence, we will have a basis for discussing other uses of "anti-cult movement". Tanaats 02:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This alternative version could work:

Other opposition comes from traditional religion, secular cult critics which are referred to in literature as belonging to an anti-cult movement, the Christian countercult movement, skeptics, and critical former members.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Howabout "...secular cult critics who are sometimes referred to in literature as belonging to an anti-cult movement"? I'll even go for "often". Tanaats 18:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "A few entrepreneurs have made careers by creating organized opposition. (See Rick Ross)."... Hadden's language has a great deal of pejorative connotation, e.g. that such people have more interest in establishing a "career" than in helping people. Also the word "entrepeneur" has the connotation that such people's main interests are business and money-making. It's fine that this is Hadden's opinion that such people exist, but I think it's inappropriate to implicitly label a particular individual as belonging to this category. Besides being unsupportable, I doubt that it meets the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP. I propose that "(See Rick Ross)" should be removed Tanaats 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of further discussion I have made the edit Tanaats 18:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "One of the characteristics of the ACM is their tendency to make general complaints about "cults" based on accusations of organizational hierarchical structure, charismatic leadership, thought reform, mind control, and brainwashing, instead of focusing on specific problems and abuses that take place in some of these groups"... This is completely inaccurate. Cult critics focus intensely on "specific problems and abuses that take place in some groups". I propose that the sentence be taken out. In the meantime I've hung a "fact" tag on it. Tanaats 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I had originally written that based on what I, possibly mistakenly, had understood from among others the writings of David V. Barrett. I do not have good source for it, that it is a source that supports this statement without being a free interpretation of the source. Andries 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word "construct" in "and the kinds of narratives they construct about their previous groups are highly controversial" has pejorative connotations and is therefore POV. It implies that they make these things up. My proposed change to "relate" is NPOV since it is accurate and non-judgemental about what is going on. Tanaats 19:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why that would be pejorative. In sociology, we speak of "narratives" that are "constructed", as all narratives are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See for example [3].

A very tiny minority of our readers will be sociologists. To those uneducated in the sociological usage "construct" will imply "making it up". What is the problem with "relate"? It is both accurate and completely without possible pejorative connotation. Tanaats 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tanaats. Words like "construct" and "recruit" that have a somewhat different meaning in a sociological context when compared to an ordinary usage are better not used unless explained or explained that they are used in a neutral sociological context. Andries 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We can attribute these terms to Bromley. See [4] The current controversy surrounding new religions has brought to the forefront the role of apostates. These individuals leave highly controversial movements and assume roles in other organizations as public opponents against their former movements. This volume examines the motivations of the apostates, how they are recruited and play out their roles, the kinds of narratives they construct to discredit their previous groups, and the impact of apostasy on the outcome of conflicts between movements and society. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Bromley did not write this. The sentence statement from the book summary that apostates are "recruited" borders on the ridiculous. Andries 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I find it uninformative to merely state that the role that apostates play is controversial. In what sense? When and why? The entry should answer these questions, though I admit that there is little place in this entry for it. Andries 19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the book? You should. He speaks in these terms quite unambiguously. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What page? Andries 19:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pages 13 to 16; Page 27; page 81 to 86, and many more. Get the book. It is very interesting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Bromley gives in that book an unusual definition of apostasy, as can be read in that article. We cannot quote Bromley from that book about apostasy unless we explain how Bromley there defines the term apostasy because otherwise it would be an out-of-context assertion Andries 20:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC) amended for grammar and clarity 20:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Andries, but that book also include contributions of many other scholars such as Lewis F. Carter, Anson Shupe, Susan J. Palmer, James T. Richardson, Daniel Carson Johnson, Stuart A. Wright and others, who speak in similar terms. Read the book. Also note that that sentence is also on the main article [[Apostasy]. As this is a summary of that article, it should be OK.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so what? If we quote Bromley from his book about apostasy then we should write how he very narrowly defined it. His definition is unusually narrow and rather extreme. Andries

It is not my impression that other contributors, like Barker fully follwed Bromley in his extremism. Andries 20:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the book, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

<<< For example: "In some cases the evidence is so strong that we can condifently conclude that the very starting point of the apostate's tale is a fabrication." (page 116, Daniel Carson Johnson, Chapter: The Apostate role and career.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

what are you trying to prove? Andries 20:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That there are more "extremist" views (as you call them), than Bromley's. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Barker wrote in an article Standing at the crossroads in the book page 75 (that I do not consider one of her strongest) that ex-members "may be called past members, apostates, defectors, or some other name denoting they once were, but no longer, a member of the NRM in question." In other words she does not follow Bromley's definition. Andries 20:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In the same article, Barker explains the same narratives as a constructed out of a need for the apostate to assert that he is "really out". The apostate, according to Barker, adopts these narratives as a way to exonerate himself from the responsibility of having "given in" into the group's beliefs. She also speak of the apostate's needs to blame his early involvement as a consequence of "brainwashing" and "mind control. So, Bromley is not the only scholar making these assertions, regardless if we believe that these assertion are a generalization, or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, what I propose is that whomever we quote here about apostasy then we should also write how the writer who is quoted uses the term apostasy ,because some, like Bromley, uses it in a very narrow and unusual way. Note that Barker labels in another article all ex-members apostates i.e. Defection from the Unification Church: Some Statistics and Distinctions, article in the book edited by David G. Bromley Falling from the Faith: The Causes and Consequences of Religious Apostasy . Newbury Park: SAGE Publications, (1988) ISBN 0-8039-3188-3. Andries 22:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That is all explored in detail in the Apostasy article, and we are wikilinking to it. The term "apostate" is widely used in relation to critical former members in related literature (as different to non-critical former members defined as "defectors" or "leavetakers" and other terms), and that is all we are saying here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the "apostasy" discussion started above has moved down here so... "Apostasy" is a term that is "widely used" almost exclusively by those with one POV in a heated, ongoing and long term debate regardind NRMs/cults, their undoubted academic qualifications notwithstanding.. Even though we wikilink to Apostasy which gives a fuller explanation of this, we shouldn't use this disputed term here without qualification. Tanaats 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

(All I ask for are very simple qualifications such as those I've introduced so far as a trial. Tanaats 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Give it a go and see what we get. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

<<< A point of clarification: The term "apostate" as it relates to NRM is indeed widely used, and not only by Bromley and others mentioned here. Some bibliography follows:

• The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, by James R. Lewis; Oxford University Press, 2004
• The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society, by Bryan R. Wilson
• New Religious Movements in the United States and Canada: A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography, by Diane Choquette; Greenwood Press, 1985
• Freedom of Religion and Belief: A World Report, by Kevin Boyle, Juliet Sheen; Routledge, 1997
• Researching New Religious Movements: responses and redefinitions, by Elisabeth Arweck, Routledge (UK) 2006

and many others, including Zablocki in his "Reliability and Validity of Apostate Accounts in the Study of Religious Communities" that he presented at the annual meetings of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, in New York in 1996. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. The "cult critics" have indeed been totally outpublished by those supporting NRM concepts. And cult critics are far outnumbered in academia in a similar way. Langone agrees: "Sympathizers, who tend to be academics in sociology and religious studies, have published widely (see Bromley, 1998 for a recent review; also see www.cesnur.org), while critics, who tend with some notable exceptions to be mental health professionals, have not published as much and have not usually responded to sympathizers' critiques of the so-called "anti-cult movement" (ACM), which typically is presented as including professional and academic critics."[5].

Regarding Zablocki, yes I ran across his usage of "apostate"; all I can say is that he is a sociologist and might be comfortable using the word, intending its official nonpejorative denotation. The non-official pejorative connotation has resulted from what other sociologists say about "apostates". As an example, the presumption that ex-members are somehow less reliable then current members, and less reliasble than the official positions of their groups, gives "apostate" the very pejorative connotation of "unreliable".

I'll keep working on these edits tomorrow. In the meantime, isn't this article highly redundant to Apostasy in the discussion, for example, of "reliability"? Is that a good thing? Tanaats 03:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue with which I started this section got lost as we started discussing Bromley and apostasy. I'd like to revive it. I'll copy the beginning of the section until (IMO) we got off of my intended topic below, plus I'll add a new comment at the bottom... Tanaats 01:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word "construct" in "and the kinds of narratives they construct about their previous groups are highly controversial" has pejorative connotations and is therefore POV. It implies that they make these things up. My proposed change to "relate" is NPOV since it is accurate and non-judgemental about what is going on. Tanaats 19:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why that would be pejorative. In sociology, we speak of "narratives" that are "constructed", as all narratives are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See for example [6].

A very tiny minority of our readers will be sociologists. To those uneducated in the sociological usage "construct" will imply "making it up". What is the problem with "relate"? It is both accurate and completely without possible pejorative connotation. Tanaats 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tanaats. Words like "construct" and "recruit" that have a somewhat different meaning in a sociological context when compared to an ordinary usage are better not used unless explained or explained that they are used in a neutral sociological context. Andries 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We can attribute these terms to Bromley. See [7] The current controversy surrounding new religions has brought to the forefront the role of apostates. These individuals leave highly controversial movements and assume roles in other organizations as public opponents against their former movements. This volume examines the motivations of the apostates, how they are recruited and play out their roles, the kinds of narratives they construct to discredit their previous groups, and the impact of apostasy on the outcome of conflicts between movements and society. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to repeat my comment above: Incredibly few of our readers will be sociologists. Most of our readers will take "construct" in a pejorative sense of "making the whole thing up". I would still like to change "construct" to relate. Tanaats 01:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we attribute that term instead? We could say something along the lines, "sociologists refer to the apostate testimonies as "tales" or "constructed narratives", or the like, rather than asserting this as a fact. After all, this is an encyclopedia that describes significant viewpoints, not our likes or dislikes of terms. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, significant connotations can be as important as denotations, or sometimes even more important when the public is more aware of the connotation than the denotation. However your proposal to emphasize that this is a carefully defined denotation sounds good.

But... I've gone back to the article to see how that would sound in context and I can't find that phrase anymore when searching for "construct". I don't remember seeing it being taken out. Tanaats 01:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It was revised by Andries and further revised by ≈ jossi ≈. Vassyana 09:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Vassyana. I remember now. Thanks Andries and Jossi. Tanaats 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice the that article makes no mention that some groups frequently demonize critical former members with a whole spectrum of accusations of character flaws and claims of criminal actions. (e.g. Freedom Magazine, Vol 27, Issue 4: A Crime By Any Other Name. See "Dennis Erlich: Copyright Terrorist".) Do any of the NRM scholars mention this frequent occurance with some groups? AndroidCat 04:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Academic study" section is currently mostly redundant to the Apostasy article. I propose that we summarize that discussion here and reference Apostasy for further detail. Tanaats 19:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll suspend my "apostasy" editing project while we discuss this. Tanaats 19:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. My thoughts:

• [1st paragraph] "The field of cults and new religious movements has been studied by social scientists, sociologists, religious scholars, psychologists and psychiatrists since the early 1980s. The debates about a certain purported cult and cults in general are often polarized with widely divergent opinions, not only among current followers and critical former members, but sometimes even among scholars as well."

Only since the 1980s? So no such studies occured previous to that on the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses or Unitarians (as examples)? This is patently ridiculous. "[P]urported cults and cults in general" uses the pejorative terms and makes "cults" seem ubiquitous to NRMs. I feel this can be removed.

I doubt that studies were done by the professionals and academic that are listed prior to the 1980s.

In an article that discusses "Opposition to cults and new religious movements" the term "cult" can certainly be used. Tanaats 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• [1st paragraph] "For example, the American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton holds the view that cults rarely do serious harm and that stories of apostates cannot be relied upon. In correspondence with this view, he went to Japan just after the Aum Shinrikyo's sarin attack to declare that Aum Shinrikyo was innocent."

This continues the pejorative term use and casts critics of NRM opposition in a very negative light by exploiting reference to the Aum Shinrikyo attack. It also leads a reader to the conclusion that NRMs as a general body should be associated with such radical violent action. I feel this can be removed as well.

Hell, I'd love to take stuff out that I don't like too. :) If properly cited then this information is admissible. Hang a "fact" tag on it for now and I'll come up with a cite. Tanaats 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• [3rd paragraph]

This is technically worded OK, but it feels a bit promotional for some reason, though it may simply be a matter of my perception. It may come across as more balanced in a context of removing the bias preceding the paragraph.

Would you please elaborate on what you see as "bias" in the preceeding paragraph? Tanaats 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem of preceding context. Paragraph is fine. My error. Vassyana 20:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• [5th paragraph]"As a result of this study, the treatment (coerced or voluntary) of former members as people in need of psychological assistance largely ceased. These studies also conclude that the lack of any widespread need for psychological help by former members of new religions has in itself become the strongest evidence refuting early sweeping condemnations of new religions as causes of psychological trauma." [emphesis added]

Obvious bias. It makes the critics and skeptics of the countercult movement sound like heartless opposition to a good cause. Lacking citation of these outrageous claims, this should be complete removed.

I don't understand at all. As I read it the whole paragraph summarizes a study by Bromley and Shupe. Unless I'm confused this paragraph represents the NRM position. Tanaats 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• The 4th, 5th and 6th paragraphs should be combined and condensed. My above comments should be taken into consideration. Dr. Langone's views should be presented in the context of a biased source, since he is a considerable advocate of the countercult movement.

The summary of Langone's argument is properly cited. Introducing anything about "obviously biased" would be OR. And I think that some NRM scholars are biased too, but I can't put in any OR to express that. Tanaats 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• [section]"The APA, Margaret Singer and the brainwashing theories"

This is already better covered in DIMPAC, as well as brainwashing, and should be greatly, if not completely reduced. The aforementioned artciles should be noted as part of the standard "see also".

See what we did with DIMPAC at Margaret Singer. Those involved with that edit hope to introduce the same summary of DIMPAC, pointing to the DIMPAC article for further information, here as well. We can certainly discuss giving the brasinwashing discussion here the same treatment. Tanaats 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts? Vassyana 09:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot follow the discussion above as it stands. Tanaats, would you be kind enough to write your comments separately from the comments of others? (It is considered lack of good etiquette to do what you did above). You can number Vassyana's comments, and then reply below by stating the number. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks for informing me of the proper etiquette. I will definitely observe it in future. Tanaats 16:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I know for a fact studies were done by academics regarding both Mormons and Unitarians. I'll find some references to cite as examples. I'm aware just "knowing" something is insufficient for WP. Do we have a citation which claims there were no such studies before the 1980s?

"Cult" is a highly charged word and should be avoided in the neutral voice.

{re: Tokyo attacks) Citation is not the end-all be-all. Leading statements and examples are clearly against NPOV. General statements of belief, or article-appropriate criticism are OK when cited. Using an example as a rhetorical device to promote a particular view is not. I will repeat my criticism: 'It also leads a reader to the conclusion that NRMs as a general body should be associated with such radical violent action.'

(re: 5th paragraph)The portion I quote is not at all a summary but a value judgment of those studies. Such a critical, and inaccurate, view of Bromley/Shupe is commonplace in the countercult movement. You may reference [8], [9] and [10] for examples. Please note relevent to our discussion of pre-80s studies that the second link refers to academics being involved in the debate about "cults" during at least the 70s.

(re: Langone's views) Quite right. I would like to see some balance to the section. I will endeavour to find sources to balance the commentary.

(re: DIMPAC/Singer) Seems good. I would suggest however that the summary be shortened for this article. Vassyana 20:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for discussing this so well. I appreciate your interest in consensus and good editing.

Unless someone stops me pretty soon I'm going to go ahead with this. Tanaats 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I take off the "mergeto" tag? Tanaats 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I put an "unsourced" tag on the article? Tanaats 00:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to discuss it first, I'm going to change "anti-cult activist" to "cult critic" in the article. We don't, for an example, refer to NRM scholars as "anti-religious-bigotry activists", and for NPOV we should extend the same courtesy to the cult critics. Tanaats _"cult_critic"" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I support that change. Vassyana 20:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Smeelgova 05:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

The term anti-cult movement is used almost exclusivly by NRM scholars. Cult critics dispute the very existence such a movement. The use of "anti-cult movement" outside of the context of expressing the opinions of NRM scholars is therefore POV.

I have changed "Other opposition comes from traditional religion, the anti-cult movement, the Christian countercult movement, skeptics, and critical former members (sometimes referred to in literature as apostates) to "Other opposition comes from traditional religion, secular cult critics, the Christian countercult movement, skeptics, and critical former members (sometimes referred to in literature as apostates)." Tanaats 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Opposition to cults and new religious movements. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2