This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Recovery from Cults article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on October 21, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on January 26, 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I do not think that this is a notable book. VFD would be better or change it into a general article "Recovery from cults". Andries 06:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On 31 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Recovery from Cults for a record of the discussion. — Korath ( Talk) 05:48, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Having spent several hundred dollars looking for material on CULT RECOVERY I can honestly say this book is the best one, most academic, functional and practical. Please see the link [1] which will show you just how many credible individuals put in their expertise to make this book. There isn't another book out there with such a think tank that came together with the intent to help on a global level. Please see all the links in webpage so you can judge for yourself.
Your comments are most welcome. LogicUser 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It's important to note that Wikipedia is not a book reviewer. It does not make value judgements about what certain books are good for, though it may report what other people have to say. I would expect to see such reports in the "Book Reviews" section, but I have no idea what the text that's there has to do with this book. -- Beland 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
user:Beland wrote that the following paragraph misses context and is hence incomprehensible. I cannot understand how anyone cannot understand it and what context should be provided. Please explain.
Andries 09:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I want to do more work on the article but I want to this only after I am sure that this article will not be deleted. Andries 14:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (amended for grammar)
Please don't delete this as it is too valuable to post cult members and those affected from contact with such cults/sects/NRMs. I say turn it into a Recovery from cults article if you must, but keep the information there. Thanks/PEACE TalkAbout 18:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I added this tag because of the following non-neutral phrases:
If this article is going to get a major overhaul, these POV problems should be addressed. -- Beland 20:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Given the controversial aspect of this book, (i.e. the dispute about "cults", "brainwashing" and "mid control" as valid theories) we should either not add self-servig quotes, unless accompanied by other viewpoints. Otherwise this is advertising and not NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The intro says that the book is premised on the "mind control model" but the actual quote from the book talks about the "victim, or trauma, model". The claim in the intro is unreferenced, so perhaps it is mistaken, or the truth is more complex than the article's current explanation. -- Beland 20:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to wonder whether there is any scientific evidence that any of the techniques advocated by the book are effective, if there is a raging debate, or if professional therapy societies and schools recommend different approaches than this book. I'm sure there is material on cults in peer-reviewed psychiatric journals. -- Beland 20:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Beland. Wikipedia is not Amazon.com. If you want to know just what a book contains, when it was published, etc. go to Amazon or a similar site. If a book is prominent enough to have an article in WP, we need to then provide some context, present the controversy the book raised if any, and provide counterpoints to the author's views, if held by notable authors. Otherwise these type of articles are just advertisement. A book, is a product, and in articles about products we do not onkly describe the product, but we also describe what reliable sources say about the product. See Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) that talks about product advertisement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Se also WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
: I do not understand what your argument is. If you believe that it should be deleted, you are wlcome to vote delete at the AfD.
≈ jossi ≈
t •
@ 22:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
A proposal in progress Wikipedia:Notability (books), that may interest editors involved in this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Langone is the director of the the organization that published the book, is that not self-publishing? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Others have highlighted this particular quote from the book too i.e. Stuart Wright in the book Politics of religious apostasy edited by David G. Bromley. Andries 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Andries 20:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
In general I think that there a disproportionate amount of discussion and reverting and tagging for the small article. Andries 20:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
As in WP:EL external links that discuss the subject of an article, and provide readers with alternative viewpoints, providing that these links are reliable sources, are welcome. Why the deletion? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The book is a one-sided attack on alleged "manipulation" by "cults". It ignores the similarity between the unethical practices it attributes cults and the unethical practices actually conceded by deprogrammers. -- Uncle Ed 20:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Relating To The:
I have also obtained the relevant review from Saliba and it is not a favorable review. Rather, it is mostly critical. If it does not violate any copyrights and is okay within the confines of Wikipedia Policy, I will post it here. SSS108 talk- email 04:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I wanted to point out that Arthur A. Dole's book-review is the only review to which full text is shown. Arthur A. Dole happens to be on the Board Of Directors of the ICSA (formerly known as AFF - American Family Foundation) [2], whose executive director is Michael Langone (the author of this book) [3]. Therefore, the only public book-review was written by a board member belonging to a foundation to which Langone is the executive director. This is indicative of bias. Of course the review is going to be favorable. Since there are no other public book-reviews, this points directly to the non-notability of this book. SSS108 talk- email 23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This article reads like an advertisement. It requires NPOV'ng aand the inclusion of other reviews than the one provided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
If anyone is willing to work on this article, email me and I will send you the critical review by Saliba. SSS108 talk- email 05:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that one of the quotes cited on the article is so long, it may be a copyright violation issue. SSS108 talk- email 05:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is based solely on primary sources (the book itself), and as such it is not compliant with content policies. In order to be compliant, third party sources (critiques, reviews, etc) need to be used. I have tagged the article with the appropriate tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Recovery from cults book cover AFF.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 07:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Recovery from Cults/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
*5 citations, 1 image book cover. Article needs expansion with reputable secondary sourced citations. Smee 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC). |
Last edited at 01:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 04:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Recovery from Cults article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on October 21, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on January 26, 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I do not think that this is a notable book. VFD would be better or change it into a general article "Recovery from cults". Andries 06:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On 31 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Recovery from Cults for a record of the discussion. — Korath ( Talk) 05:48, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Having spent several hundred dollars looking for material on CULT RECOVERY I can honestly say this book is the best one, most academic, functional and practical. Please see the link [1] which will show you just how many credible individuals put in their expertise to make this book. There isn't another book out there with such a think tank that came together with the intent to help on a global level. Please see all the links in webpage so you can judge for yourself.
Your comments are most welcome. LogicUser 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It's important to note that Wikipedia is not a book reviewer. It does not make value judgements about what certain books are good for, though it may report what other people have to say. I would expect to see such reports in the "Book Reviews" section, but I have no idea what the text that's there has to do with this book. -- Beland 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
user:Beland wrote that the following paragraph misses context and is hence incomprehensible. I cannot understand how anyone cannot understand it and what context should be provided. Please explain.
Andries 09:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I want to do more work on the article but I want to this only after I am sure that this article will not be deleted. Andries 14:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (amended for grammar)
Please don't delete this as it is too valuable to post cult members and those affected from contact with such cults/sects/NRMs. I say turn it into a Recovery from cults article if you must, but keep the information there. Thanks/PEACE TalkAbout 18:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I added this tag because of the following non-neutral phrases:
If this article is going to get a major overhaul, these POV problems should be addressed. -- Beland 20:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Given the controversial aspect of this book, (i.e. the dispute about "cults", "brainwashing" and "mid control" as valid theories) we should either not add self-servig quotes, unless accompanied by other viewpoints. Otherwise this is advertising and not NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The intro says that the book is premised on the "mind control model" but the actual quote from the book talks about the "victim, or trauma, model". The claim in the intro is unreferenced, so perhaps it is mistaken, or the truth is more complex than the article's current explanation. -- Beland 20:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to wonder whether there is any scientific evidence that any of the techniques advocated by the book are effective, if there is a raging debate, or if professional therapy societies and schools recommend different approaches than this book. I'm sure there is material on cults in peer-reviewed psychiatric journals. -- Beland 20:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Beland. Wikipedia is not Amazon.com. If you want to know just what a book contains, when it was published, etc. go to Amazon or a similar site. If a book is prominent enough to have an article in WP, we need to then provide some context, present the controversy the book raised if any, and provide counterpoints to the author's views, if held by notable authors. Otherwise these type of articles are just advertisement. A book, is a product, and in articles about products we do not onkly describe the product, but we also describe what reliable sources say about the product. See Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) that talks about product advertisement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Se also WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
: I do not understand what your argument is. If you believe that it should be deleted, you are wlcome to vote delete at the AfD.
≈ jossi ≈
t •
@ 22:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
A proposal in progress Wikipedia:Notability (books), that may interest editors involved in this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Langone is the director of the the organization that published the book, is that not self-publishing? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Others have highlighted this particular quote from the book too i.e. Stuart Wright in the book Politics of religious apostasy edited by David G. Bromley. Andries 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Andries 20:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
In general I think that there a disproportionate amount of discussion and reverting and tagging for the small article. Andries 20:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
As in WP:EL external links that discuss the subject of an article, and provide readers with alternative viewpoints, providing that these links are reliable sources, are welcome. Why the deletion? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The book is a one-sided attack on alleged "manipulation" by "cults". It ignores the similarity between the unethical practices it attributes cults and the unethical practices actually conceded by deprogrammers. -- Uncle Ed 20:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Relating To The:
I have also obtained the relevant review from Saliba and it is not a favorable review. Rather, it is mostly critical. If it does not violate any copyrights and is okay within the confines of Wikipedia Policy, I will post it here. SSS108 talk- email 04:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I wanted to point out that Arthur A. Dole's book-review is the only review to which full text is shown. Arthur A. Dole happens to be on the Board Of Directors of the ICSA (formerly known as AFF - American Family Foundation) [2], whose executive director is Michael Langone (the author of this book) [3]. Therefore, the only public book-review was written by a board member belonging to a foundation to which Langone is the executive director. This is indicative of bias. Of course the review is going to be favorable. Since there are no other public book-reviews, this points directly to the non-notability of this book. SSS108 talk- email 23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This article reads like an advertisement. It requires NPOV'ng aand the inclusion of other reviews than the one provided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
If anyone is willing to work on this article, email me and I will send you the critical review by Saliba. SSS108 talk- email 05:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that one of the quotes cited on the article is so long, it may be a copyright violation issue. SSS108 talk- email 05:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is based solely on primary sources (the book itself), and as such it is not compliant with content policies. In order to be compliant, third party sources (critiques, reviews, etc) need to be used. I have tagged the article with the appropriate tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Recovery from cults book cover AFF.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 07:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Recovery from Cults/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
*5 citations, 1 image book cover. Article needs expansion with reputable secondary sourced citations. Smee 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC). |
Last edited at 01:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 04:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)