Talk:Post-cult trauma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Personal Testimonies Section

The entire section on "Personal Testimonies" is a violation of WP:V and is POV pushing. How can one link to blogs, tripod sites, random comments on message boards and non-notable sites that are full of original research and Christian attempts to counter cults (as in the case of "spiritualabuse.org": Ref). This type of information would never be used in an encyclopedia. Either someone cite Wikipedia policy that allows for its inclusion, reference it to reputable media or I will delete it. SSS108 talk-email 17:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You are at least partially wrong. Some of the personal testimonies can be considered reputable sources. In addition, as always, the the opinions of prominent proponents can and should be linked to. Andries 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you need to cite Wikipedia policy that supports your statements. I only see one link that refers to a reputable media article and it happens to link to the geocities site that you take issue with. SSS108 talk-email 04:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also my intention to remove the section about Matthijs van der Meer. For starters, Matthijs van der Meer's article has not been cited (and is not citable) in the Post Cult Trauma article. Why is Matthijs van der Meer included in the bibliography when his testimony was not used in or for the Post Cult Trauma article? This is misleading and biased. Matthijs van der Meer's article is not a reliable source because it was published in a non-reputable New Age Magazine and this would violate Wikipedia's policy on reputable and reliable references. Andries is POV pushing and that is the only reason he is including this material. What other reason is there? SSS108 talk-email 04:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
A bibliography is a section for articles and books that are not used for the article. Andries 05:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
books or article in the bibliography do not have to be necessarily reputable. Andries 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sugggestions for title changes

Folllowing Jossi's logic I can think of some other articles that need their title change such as from reincarnation to reincarnation theory, from God to God theory etc. etc. What I mean to say with those examples is that Jossi's move contradicts Wikipedia's generally accepted practices. Andries 20:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I will revert properly, so as to keep the history. Give me a few minutes. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Reverted page move. You may need to refresh your browser cache. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

References need to be re-formatted using the cite.php format. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lonnie Kliever wrote himself in the article that he was requested by the Church of Scientology to give his opinion about apostasy. This is already in the given citation. Please read the given citation before asking a citation. Thanks. Andries 06:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The summary of the Swedish report does writes about the peopele seeking "in connection with membership and withdrawal". From this I cannot infer that the request for help deal exclusively with withdrawal. Andries 06:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed a link which is on the discussion spam at the blacklist discussion at meta. The same content appears to be at http://www.caic.org.au/general/psymove.htm which may be the original source? If you think it should go in the article perhaps this link would be better? --BozMo talk 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag?

Why? Can we know what the concerns are so that we can address them here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an anonymous user removed all instances of "so-called" (as in 'So-called cults') creating assertions that the groups in question are undeniably cults. The user did the same on the cult article. Sfacets 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So clean it up, and remove the NPOV tag. No? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I would, except I would be in breach of the 3RR, I have already reverted twice. Sfacets 05:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Smeelglova reverted again, with the comment "anon ip makes a very very good point. "so called" is POV pushing classification".
Isn't removing it POV pushing classification? To state that a group is a cult vs a group has been called a cult makes all the difference between POV and NPOV - the very reason the List of groups referred to as cults article is not named list of cults for example. Sfacets 09:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but as no cults are directly named, there is no problem in this instance utilizing this term... Smee 07:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Over-weighting of Quotations

This article is about cult trauma. It is not about JWs. There are too many mentions of the JW's putting the article's balance out of wack. I'm removing them. SV 05:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I can not help it. That is what the the source (Kranenborg) wrote. Andries 06:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing that compels us to put information in this article. As a matter of fact putting too much weight on one group would be wrong. And in any event asserting cultishness is a serious accusation. I notice the List of Groups Referred to as Cults has a series of criteria used to rein in the accusations of former members and crackpots. I recommend those criteria for this article. It provides consistancy and an encyclopedic manner. SV 13:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You removed properly sourced relevant information. Andries 16:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The information might have been properly sourced but this is not an article about JWs. Nearly all the quotes implied that JWs are a cult, proof of which is beyond the scope of this article. The information should go under JW controversies or something. Perhaps a limited amount of information can deal with the topic of JWs if it is framed in a fair and sympathetic manner but not the vast majority of quotes. Just because information is sourceable does not mean that it belongs. SV 20:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scare quotes

I agree with Sfacets, the word "cult" is on the Wikipedia words to avoid list for good reason. Putting it in quotes makes it OK. Just because a lot of people got het up about brainwashing groups in the 70s doesn't mean we should repeat their biases today. There is no usage of the word "cult" that is neutral. Rumiton 12:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If it's such a good idea then why aren't we using scare quotes in the title and every instance thorughout the article? What do you think that "Post-cult trauma" is about? Cults, perhaps? If we want to move it to "Post-new religious movement trauma" to avoid the negative connotations of the word "cult" then that would be an alternative (a silly one, in my opinion). We should avoid using "cult" where it doesn't belong, but when it is the most appropriate then then we should use it without hesitation, and without scare quotes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) discuourages their use:
  • "Quotation marks" for emphasis of a single word or phrase, or scare quotes, are discouraged. Quotation marks are to show that you are using the correct word as quoted from the original source.
So there has to be an especially good reason for using them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I can see both sides of this. I have tried to help out at a number of articles on spiritual groups and leaders, and this issue comes up constantly. None of the adherents want the word cult to be applied to their organisation, and none of the detractors want it to be left out. A couple of years ago the French Government tried to help out (presumably) by compiling a list of French "cults" (those quote marks again) but the furore that resulted forced them to disavow it. This article presents, to my way of thinking, a quite balanced approach, but encouraging the reader to take a mental shortcut by using a pejorative descriptor like this does not enhance it. Let's look at alternatives. I agree Post-New Religious Movements looks silly and seems what one might call Spiritually Correct. Maybe there is another way? Rumiton 03:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)