Talk:List of deprogrammers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability of members on this list[edit]

I have twice removed names from this list where notability was not established, which is a requirement for standalone lists of people. The provided citations do not establish notability. For example, I removed "Wendy Ford" from this list. The only citation provided is for a list of names found in a discarded Rolodex from the Cult Awareness Network. That is not a reliable source, and certainly does not establish notability. Tgeairn (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removals[edit]

Why were referenced entries removed? User:Cwobeel. Zambelo; talk 05:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate an answer. Again entries were removed, despite new sources being added. Zambelo; talk 03:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly been told that the names were added in violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Which is why I went and found new references. Zambelo; talk 03:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 'new references' included the same rejected source, under a slightly different name - that is blatant misrepresentation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which source are you talking about, exactly? you mean " a list of names found in a discarded Rolodex from the Cult Awareness Network"? This happens to be mentioned by a secondary source. If any duplication occurred, it wasn't intended. Zambelo; talk 03:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that you reverted all the changes, not just the duplicate reference. Zambelo; talk 03:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: The inclusion of names, the validity of references, and BLP[edit]

Editors do not support reinstating the removed individuals from the list on the basis that the term "deprogrammer" carries serious implications (and therefore requires unambiguous and reliable evidence of these claims) in addition to normal expectations of significant coverage of these individuals that goes beyond passing mentions in sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A number of entries to the article were removed recently,

  • [1] - "rmv names, notability not established - see WP:NLIST)"
  • [2] - "Please read and comprehend WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPEOPLE before putting these back)"

I was requested to find new sources, then re-add [3], which I then did [4] - however these were again removed [5].

The question is - do the entries merit inclusion based on the provided references as seen here [6], or are they in violation of BLP? Which ones? Zambelo; talk 03:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Support:

  • Many of the entries are mentioned in multiple publishes sources - this includes secondary sources by reputable authors[7]
  • The Individuals themselves have often described their function as being a deprogrammer, it isn't a "conviction' - it was a title.
  • Individuals are notable as deprogrammers, and sources back this up. They don't need to have written about it, they aren't scholars, deprogramming was their job, and they are described as such in multiple (where possible) reliable, independent secondary sources - "verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."
  • I would like to examine the sources - which ones are unreliable and do not back that the individual is a deprogrammer?

List of references used[edit]

Here is a list of references used in the article.

  • T. Marshall L. Rev. 359 (1998-1999) Holy Wars: Involuntary Deprogramming as a Weapon against Cults; McAllister, Shawn Gallagher, Eugene V.; Ashcraft, W. Michael (2006). Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 141. ISBN 0-275-98712-4.
  • Orth, Maureen (December 2008). "Blueblood War". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2010-03-10.
  • "The Cult Awareness Network and the Anticult Movement: Implications for NRMs in America" (with Susan E. Darnell and Kendrick Moxon) in New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. edited by Derek H. Davis and Barry Hankins. Waco: J.M.Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies and Baylor University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-929182-64-2
  • Lewis, J.R. 2011. Violence and New Religious Movements: Oxford University Press, USA.
  • Reframing Religious Violence after 9/11: Analysis of the ACM Campaign to Exploit the Threat of Terrorism Stuart A. Wright Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent ReligionsVol. 12, No. 4 (May 2009), pp. 5-27
  • Davis, D. and B. Hankins. 2003. New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America: Baylor University Press.
  • The Cult Awareness Network and the Anticult Movement: Implications for NRMs in America" (with Susan E. Darnell and Kendrick Moxon) in New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. edited by Derek H. Davis and Barry Hankins. Waco: J.M.Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies and Baylor University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-929182-64-2
  • Melton, J. Gordon. 2001. "The Fate of NRMs and their Detractors in Twenty-first Century America." Nova Religio 4 (2): 241-248.
  • (notarized) Declaration of John M. Sweeney, Jr. on deprogramming and the Citizens Freedom Foundation. Maricopa County, Arizona. March 17, 1992.
  • Peggy Fletcher Stack, The Salt Lake Tribune. 1995. "CULTS OR JUST NEW BELIEFS? EXPERTS AIM AT NEWEST OF RELIGIONS." The Salt Lake Tribune. 1995 Jun 10.
  • Rabbi continues push for cult deprogramming, Syracuse Herald-Journal, Friday July 25, 1980
  • Foundation, American Family 1994. The Cult Observer Volumes 11-13.
  • Shupe, Anson; Susan E. Darnell; Kendrick Moxon (2000-10-21). "CAN, We Hardly Knew Ye: Sex, Drugs, Deprogrammers’ Kickbacks, and Corporate Crime in the (old) Cult Awareness Network". Presented at 2000 meeting of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (CESNUR). Retrieved 2007-10-28.
  • Varshavskiy, N. Religious Extremism of Alexander Dvorkin. Research Article: Nikolay Varshavskiy.
  • "En quête de vérité". 18 December 1991. TF1. TF1..

Falsani, Cathleen (March 25, 2004). "Ex-Wheaton students flee what they call 'definitely evil' cult". Chicago Sun-Times (Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.). p. 8.

  • The Naperville Sun staff (April 1, 2004). "College responds to reports of cult activity by former student". The Naperville Sun. p. 10.
  • Wedge, Dave (September 25, 2003). "Trial judge rules cult mom is sane". Boston Herald.
We have agreed that there is an issue with the primary source in form of the notarized declaration, and that there is mention of the same primary source (The CAN rolodex mentions) in two references. What issues are there with the rest of the sources? Zambelo; talk 03:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Also:

  • "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material"

verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."

  • "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. "

Zambelo; talk 22:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  • Oppose - The sources provided do not appear to meet the minimum requirements to establish notability. The most basic minimum is that: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published[rfc1 1] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[rfc1 2] and independent of the subject.[rfc1 3]" Without delving into the individual issues with the sources, the problems in general are "Intellectual independence" ("Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable).), reliability, and significant coverage. In practice, by far the best way to establish notability is to write the article first. Without notability being established, WP:BIO, WP:LISTPEOPLE, and WP:BLPCAT all direct us to not list the suggested names. Tgeairn (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose adding disputed entries per Tgeairn. None of the sources for the disputed entries are sufficient to show notability and so the entries must be omitted. Ca2james (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - and as I have noted below, there are serious WP:BLP issues raised in describing anyone as a 'deprogrammer', given the definition of the term in our article on the subject. It amounts to an accusation of criminal activity - and I note that only a single name on this list is cited as being convicted of anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, checking into this, our article on the individual concerned, Galen Kelly, states that his conviction for kidnapping was overturned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Comment - it should be noted that the 'new sources' cited for several entries consisted of nothing but a duplication, under another name, of the same source already rejected by a clear consensus at WP:BLPN as of questionable reliability, and providing insufficient evidence of notability to justify inclusion on this list. [8]. Citing poor material twice doesn't make it any better... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And incidentally, there seems to be a further problem with sourcing, even with these names redacted. In violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, the list cites a '(notarized) Declaration' as a source regarding two individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is a duplication that should not be there. However there are also other sources which are not being examined here. I 100% support removal of unsourced or inadequately sourced entries, and the removal of the mistakenly inserted duplicate - but what of the other sources? Zambelo; talk 03:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an issue with a particular reference, remove it and, if then unsourced, the entry - then discuss. What reason do you have to remove all the entries? Zambelo; talk 04:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the RFC is in regards to the sources exclusively, not activity by editors. Zambelo; talk 04:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This RFC is not well-formed. Normally a clear support/oppose question is asked and there are separate sections for !votes and comments. These conventions make it easier for the closer to figure out consensus. Ca2james (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Striking because RFC was restructured and comment is no longer relevant. Thanks, Tgeairn! Ca2james (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My view is that lists like this usually should not even exist. What I mean by this is that a "List of X" where "X" is a subgroup (say, "hospital chaplains" or some such thing) that is likely to include a vast majority of names of living people that are not notable in their own right. Because of this, sourcing for such articles (should they be allowed to exist at all) simply must be immaculate. The sources currently in use are most definitely not of that quality. LHMask me a question 20:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources do you find fault with? Zambelo; talk 03:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC References[edit]

  1. ^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
  2. ^ Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.
  3. ^ Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why a standalone article?[edit]

I was going to propose that this list be merged into the main article but before I did that I thought I'd ask why it was created as a standalone list in the first place. This list provides no context or named criteria for inclusion and the notes and associated groups columns contain duplicated material. While having a list of deprogrammers is useful, having the list as its own article is not useful. So.... Why is this list a standalone article and not included in the Deprogramming article? Ca2james (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into the underlying topic here - that of so-called 'deprogramming', I have to suggest that there are fundamental WP:BLP concerns raised. Specifically, the 'deprogramming' article states in the lede that "Deprogramming is an attempt to force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious, political, economic, or social group. Methods and practices may involve kidnapping and coercion. The person in question is taken against his/her will, which has led to controversies over freedom of religion, kidnapping and civil rights, as well as the violence which is sometimes involved, and deprogramming has been shown to result in PTSD". On this basis, the inclusion of any person in a 'list of deprogrammers' amounts to an accusation of criminal activity - clearly a breach of WP:BLP policy unless the individual has been convicted of such activities. Were it not for my prior involvement in this discussion, I'd be tempted to blank the 'list' immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. Deprogramming was practiced until it was made illegal, after a few court battles. Before then it was practiced with impunity, and these individuals offered their services as deprogrammers. There is no suggestion that these were criminal activities, because at the time, deprogramming was the norm. Zambelo; talk 03:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Utter garbage - kidnapping has always been illegal. Though I note that you have yet to explain why you claimed in this article that Galen Kelly had been "Convicted of kidnapping Debra Dobkowski" when you must have known (having edited the Kelly article several times) that the conviction had been overturned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't your call to make. The facts are that deprogramming was a profession that only became expressly banned after a series of trials, but was widely practiced before then - it wasn't an undercover activity: in fact organisations and individuals promoted themselves as deprogrammers. It was during these trials that a few deprogrammers were found guilty of kidnapping. Before then they were deprogrammers, and worked as such for a fee. And I knew nothing of the kind - the references said he was convicted. he served 16 months in federal prison - it appears that he was convicted, but later on his sentence was overturned. Zambelo; talk 04:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are claiming to have never read an article you edited on six different occasions? [9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gallen Kelley was convicted, you understand. His conviction was overturned after he served time, but he was convicted of kidnapping.
From the article: "In 1992, Kelly was indicted for allegedly planning to kidnap du Pont heir and Lyndon LaRouche follower Lewis du Pont Smith.[3] The trial ended with acquittal".
"In 1993, Kelly was convicted to a seven-year three-month sentence in federal prison for the 1992 kidnapping of Debra Dobkowski, the head of the Washington cell of a group called "The Circle of Friends".
References support this. Zambelo; talk 04:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think about that but now that you point it out, it makes sense that including anyone's name in the list is tantamount to accusing them of being criminals. Galen Kelly ended up pleading guilty to a lesser charge after the original conviction was overturned. Even so, he's not been convicted of the activities in the lede so his name can't be in the list either. My only "involvement" with this set of articles is to comment on one AfD and the comments I've made on this Talk page; I've made no content changes so I'm willing to blank it. After that, this article should be deleted. Ca2james (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Blanking complete. Ca2james (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support this blanking per WP:BLPCRIME, and per my reasoning in my comment above that this list shouldn't even exist to begin with. LHMask me a question 14:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this article suggests the individuals have committed a crime. Deprogramming isn't a crime. Zambelo; talk 15:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misconception - deprogramming isn't a conviction - it's a job title. These people were practising deprogrammers. Being a deprogrammer didn't automatically make you a criminal. Only certain deprogrammers were convicted, but not for deprogramming, for kidnapping. BLP:crime doesn't apply here.

Zambelo; talk 03:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the blanking for the BLP reasons stated above. I'd recommend outright deletion, because I cannot see this list ever being useful or in compliance with WP:BLP. In fact, I can't see this article as anything but a rogue's gallery. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_deprogrammers&oldid=1200932901"