![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I disagree with the removal of Lyman from the category "Cult leaders". First of all, he was a cult leader, and his only fame is as a cult leader. To have him in category "Harmonica players" but not "Cult leaders" is misleading, as he is far more notable in the later category as the former. Second of all, there are very few sources about Lyman that don't describe him first and foremost as a cult leader. The Rolling Stone article for starters, amd any of the sources listed in the external link, including at least one book. If the assertion is being made that he isn't noted enough as a cult leader in major books and publications (which I don't think is true), then that would mean he isn't notable enough to have to have an article at all (which I think he clearly does). (Admittedly I wrote this article fairly early one and didn't cite sources for major statements, but they're all there in the external link). Herostratus 02:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Again...
Anyway, I'm going to revert back to that version, absent any counterargument. Herostratus 09:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: "Mel is notable for as the leader of the Family, otherwise he would not merit an article." If Lyman had died immediately after leaving the Jim Kweskin Jug Band, he would have died moderately famous, and a Wikipedia article about him would still have fairly easily survived a notability challenge. Certainly founding the Fort Hill Community made him still more famous, but not hugely more famous, considering how secretive the community has been and how little access the outside world has had to it (and probably how little the outside world has ever really cared about it). No, Lyman remained only moderately famous, and in terms of fame (or infamy) the Fort Hill Community can't compare to Scientology, Ayn Rand's Objectivism, the Charles Manson Family, the Unification Church, or to many other movements that have been sometimes (or often) been characterized as cults. If it's a cult, it's a not a very well known cult. TheScotch ( talk) 02:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
in the late 80's around twenty young idealistic punks rented two houses from the remnants of the mel lyman cult.we wrote our rent checks to the enlightened realty trust and had our day to day interactions with a burned out jim kweskin. during our stay at the compound we were only allowed communication with the male members of the landlord group as the women were shipped off in vans every day not to return until nightime. at some point in our time there we broke in to a forbidden room in our basement.this room was the darkroom and archive for the avitar magazine. more to came —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.38.44 ( talk) 10:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor has objected to the characterization of Lyman as a "cult leader". It's not clear exactly what his objection but since she's not gone to the talk page I will.
But whatever, per WP:BRD it's up to the editor suggesting the change to make her case, and consequently I've restored the lead absent such a case being made and proven. Herostratus ( talk) 00:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Also see the section "Cult Leader" (different capitalization) at the top of this talk page, where the characterization of Lyman as a cult leader is defended in more detail. Herostratus ( talk) 00:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Herostratus (
talk)
18:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: "And though Lyman did some other things, such as play music, these are entirely peripheral to his notability and his reason for having an article." Since I would not have heard of Lyman or the Fort Hill Community if Lyman hadn't been a musician first and I certainly would have heard of him anyway if hadn't founded the Fort Hill Community, I must contest this assertion. I must also agree with ResidentAnthropologist that advocating the characterization of the community as a "cult" on the basis that cult is a common English word makes for a rather peculiar argument--or at least for a straw man argument. Usually when people object to the term cult it's because the terms tends to be used disparagingly. TheScotch ( talk) 02:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The article states, regarding the album Jim Kweskin's America, that "This is the only recording on which Lyman had creative control". Another editor has disputed this with a note to the effect "Warner/Reprise contract with Mo Ostin was two record deal with complete artistic control on both." However, I don't think that any other album was made and released (except for Jim Kweskin's America) where Lyman produced and/or had creative control, which is what counts. I'm willing to be instructed otherwise, but is there a reference for this second album? Herostratus ( talk) 04:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The "Later developments, and Lyman’s death" section is written as a defense of Lyman. Furthermore, characterizing the ROLLING STONE article as a philippic is hardly neutral -- in fact, it is a perjorative, which is hardly neutral.
I feel that this article, and specifically this section, likely was written by someone who is motivated to defend Lyman. Shemp Howard, Jr. ( talk) 21:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Random House defines philippic as any speech or discourse of bitter denunciation, and Collins English Dictionary defines it as a bitter or impassioned speech of denunciation; invective. Whether or not that makes the term pejorative, it certainly makes it POV. TheScotch ( talk) 11:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Re: "So? It's not a problem if it's true." One man's bitter is another man's salty, sour or sweet, and chacun à son goût. Whether the article was bitter is clearly not an objective fact. Your considering it "true" doesn't make it so. (Moreover, in context phillipic was superfluous and awkwardly wedged in.)
Re: "...actual usage as opposed to dictionary prescriptions is an important data point..." In "actual usage" philippic is not merely subjective but usually pejorative as well.
Re: "So fine, I replaced "phillipic" with 'condemnatory', which I think any reasonable person would allow is a fair description of Felton's piece."
Apparently, by "any reasonable person" you mean you. Rolling Stone purports to be objective, and publishing a piece with the intention to condemn rather than report is not being objective. This means that it is not our place at Wikipedia to characterize the Rolling Stone article as "condemnatory" no matter how we may feel about it personally. TheScotch ( talk) 22:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As others have noted, this article has been hijacked by reverent insiders - "all current members still revere Lyman, as do many former members." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.21.44 ( talk) 05:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The article repeatedly references a certain "Judy" without ever (unless I'm missing something) giving her full name or identifying her or explaining her significance. (unsigned)
"Judy" was Judy Silver, Mel's Brandeis student girlfriend who took acid against his instructions and went crazy. (per Rolling Stone article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.76.115 ( talk) 19:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Re: "Such pronouncements were typically delivered with extreme fervor and liberal use of ALL CAPS."
The expression "ALL CAPS" is a slang abbreviation and does not belong in a Wikipedia article. The expression "extreme fervor" is POV. (I could change this one sentence, but that wouldn't really solve the problem: The article as a whole is full of these sorts of solecisms . It needs a fairly extensive rewriting.) TheScotch ( talk) 22:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
A series of socks have been whitewashing this article and refusing to discuss it; when challenged, they create another one lie about it. They're all named things like Kotterdale1, Kotterdale5, and so on. I've started checkuser-blocking them, but does anyone have any idea what's going on here? --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to submit an image for this page. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mel-Lyman.jpg Kotterdale11 ( talk) 15:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evangelist_Mel_Lyman-RS_98_(December_23,_1971).jpg 2601:741:8000:1A80:7D18:54A3:FAD5:A701 ( talk) 12:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Can someone, for the love of God, add a picture of this guy? I've tried seven times already, and each time it gets removed for no reason. Please, I am begging you to add a picture to this page. Kotterdale11 ( talk) 12:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is way too long. The man was not a major figure on the world stage. 2600:6C64:667F:DB94:903F:38D5:AE17:8888 ( talk) 02:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a photo. 2601:741:8000:1A80:8542:69D3:38E1:8C9D ( talk) 23:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I disagree with the removal of Lyman from the category "Cult leaders". First of all, he was a cult leader, and his only fame is as a cult leader. To have him in category "Harmonica players" but not "Cult leaders" is misleading, as he is far more notable in the later category as the former. Second of all, there are very few sources about Lyman that don't describe him first and foremost as a cult leader. The Rolling Stone article for starters, amd any of the sources listed in the external link, including at least one book. If the assertion is being made that he isn't noted enough as a cult leader in major books and publications (which I don't think is true), then that would mean he isn't notable enough to have to have an article at all (which I think he clearly does). (Admittedly I wrote this article fairly early one and didn't cite sources for major statements, but they're all there in the external link). Herostratus 02:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Again...
Anyway, I'm going to revert back to that version, absent any counterargument. Herostratus 09:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: "Mel is notable for as the leader of the Family, otherwise he would not merit an article." If Lyman had died immediately after leaving the Jim Kweskin Jug Band, he would have died moderately famous, and a Wikipedia article about him would still have fairly easily survived a notability challenge. Certainly founding the Fort Hill Community made him still more famous, but not hugely more famous, considering how secretive the community has been and how little access the outside world has had to it (and probably how little the outside world has ever really cared about it). No, Lyman remained only moderately famous, and in terms of fame (or infamy) the Fort Hill Community can't compare to Scientology, Ayn Rand's Objectivism, the Charles Manson Family, the Unification Church, or to many other movements that have been sometimes (or often) been characterized as cults. If it's a cult, it's a not a very well known cult. TheScotch ( talk) 02:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
in the late 80's around twenty young idealistic punks rented two houses from the remnants of the mel lyman cult.we wrote our rent checks to the enlightened realty trust and had our day to day interactions with a burned out jim kweskin. during our stay at the compound we were only allowed communication with the male members of the landlord group as the women were shipped off in vans every day not to return until nightime. at some point in our time there we broke in to a forbidden room in our basement.this room was the darkroom and archive for the avitar magazine. more to came —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.38.44 ( talk) 10:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor has objected to the characterization of Lyman as a "cult leader". It's not clear exactly what his objection but since she's not gone to the talk page I will.
But whatever, per WP:BRD it's up to the editor suggesting the change to make her case, and consequently I've restored the lead absent such a case being made and proven. Herostratus ( talk) 00:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Also see the section "Cult Leader" (different capitalization) at the top of this talk page, where the characterization of Lyman as a cult leader is defended in more detail. Herostratus ( talk) 00:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Herostratus (
talk)
18:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: "And though Lyman did some other things, such as play music, these are entirely peripheral to his notability and his reason for having an article." Since I would not have heard of Lyman or the Fort Hill Community if Lyman hadn't been a musician first and I certainly would have heard of him anyway if hadn't founded the Fort Hill Community, I must contest this assertion. I must also agree with ResidentAnthropologist that advocating the characterization of the community as a "cult" on the basis that cult is a common English word makes for a rather peculiar argument--or at least for a straw man argument. Usually when people object to the term cult it's because the terms tends to be used disparagingly. TheScotch ( talk) 02:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The article states, regarding the album Jim Kweskin's America, that "This is the only recording on which Lyman had creative control". Another editor has disputed this with a note to the effect "Warner/Reprise contract with Mo Ostin was two record deal with complete artistic control on both." However, I don't think that any other album was made and released (except for Jim Kweskin's America) where Lyman produced and/or had creative control, which is what counts. I'm willing to be instructed otherwise, but is there a reference for this second album? Herostratus ( talk) 04:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The "Later developments, and Lyman’s death" section is written as a defense of Lyman. Furthermore, characterizing the ROLLING STONE article as a philippic is hardly neutral -- in fact, it is a perjorative, which is hardly neutral.
I feel that this article, and specifically this section, likely was written by someone who is motivated to defend Lyman. Shemp Howard, Jr. ( talk) 21:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Random House defines philippic as any speech or discourse of bitter denunciation, and Collins English Dictionary defines it as a bitter or impassioned speech of denunciation; invective. Whether or not that makes the term pejorative, it certainly makes it POV. TheScotch ( talk) 11:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Re: "So? It's not a problem if it's true." One man's bitter is another man's salty, sour or sweet, and chacun à son goût. Whether the article was bitter is clearly not an objective fact. Your considering it "true" doesn't make it so. (Moreover, in context phillipic was superfluous and awkwardly wedged in.)
Re: "...actual usage as opposed to dictionary prescriptions is an important data point..." In "actual usage" philippic is not merely subjective but usually pejorative as well.
Re: "So fine, I replaced "phillipic" with 'condemnatory', which I think any reasonable person would allow is a fair description of Felton's piece."
Apparently, by "any reasonable person" you mean you. Rolling Stone purports to be objective, and publishing a piece with the intention to condemn rather than report is not being objective. This means that it is not our place at Wikipedia to characterize the Rolling Stone article as "condemnatory" no matter how we may feel about it personally. TheScotch ( talk) 22:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As others have noted, this article has been hijacked by reverent insiders - "all current members still revere Lyman, as do many former members." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.21.44 ( talk) 05:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The article repeatedly references a certain "Judy" without ever (unless I'm missing something) giving her full name or identifying her or explaining her significance. (unsigned)
"Judy" was Judy Silver, Mel's Brandeis student girlfriend who took acid against his instructions and went crazy. (per Rolling Stone article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.76.115 ( talk) 19:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Re: "Such pronouncements were typically delivered with extreme fervor and liberal use of ALL CAPS."
The expression "ALL CAPS" is a slang abbreviation and does not belong in a Wikipedia article. The expression "extreme fervor" is POV. (I could change this one sentence, but that wouldn't really solve the problem: The article as a whole is full of these sorts of solecisms . It needs a fairly extensive rewriting.) TheScotch ( talk) 22:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
A series of socks have been whitewashing this article and refusing to discuss it; when challenged, they create another one lie about it. They're all named things like Kotterdale1, Kotterdale5, and so on. I've started checkuser-blocking them, but does anyone have any idea what's going on here? --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to submit an image for this page. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mel-Lyman.jpg Kotterdale11 ( talk) 15:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evangelist_Mel_Lyman-RS_98_(December_23,_1971).jpg 2601:741:8000:1A80:7D18:54A3:FAD5:A701 ( talk) 12:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Can someone, for the love of God, add a picture of this guy? I've tried seven times already, and each time it gets removed for no reason. Please, I am begging you to add a picture to this page. Kotterdale11 ( talk) 12:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is way too long. The man was not a major figure on the world stage. 2600:6C64:667F:DB94:903F:38D5:AE17:8888 ( talk) 02:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a photo. 2601:741:8000:1A80:8542:69D3:38E1:8C9D ( talk) 23:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)