User talk:Dking

Hello Dking, thanks for your edits at cult. But please provide more references for what you wrote because the subject is complicated, diverse and controversial. Thanks. Andries 07:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cheers, -Willmcw 15:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Providing sources

Hey, Dking. As you've already probably noticed, certain editors at the cult articles are pro-cult POV pushers of the first order, masters of a double standard under which even the most preposterous allegation made against Rick Ross or Margaret Singer or the anti-cult movement is given prominence, and yet any statement against cultic groups or any of their leaders is likely to be removed immediately with the claims "that's not sufficiently referenced" and "cite your sources".

When recommendations for 'proper conduct' are being wielded as weapons by blatant hypocrites with ulterior motives, it can be hard to find a reason to take anything they say seriously. Nevertheless, there are certain principles which Wikipedia does hold, and which you should give serious attention to -- even if the pro-cult guerillas are proclaiming them insincerely, with a full intent to break those same rules once it becomes convenient, these are still the principles that are valued by the people who are actually acting on Wikipedia in good faith. Wherever possible, cite your sources so that the people who are acting in good faith can know that your claims are based on research, and the POV-pushers will have to go through even more absurd verbal contortions (which they will) trying to find an excuse to delete them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cults.

Thanks for the link; I'll have to check it out. When you said There's a great check list at one of the Wiccan websites, I assume you're speaking of Isaac Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame.
And I assume the officer to whom you referred is Kerr Cuchulain, author of the Law Enforcement Guide to Wicca.
As for your question what would you do if you had a son or daughter in Rev. Jim Jones' group and found out they were all moving to the jungle in Guiana?, obviously I wouldn't know what was going to happen in advance, so I'd have been somewhat concerned, and sad my child was moving so far away, but I'd respect her/his decision.
And be completely destroyed afterward, of course...
Septegram 10:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, but I think that in such situations a lawyer is a better idea than a deprogrammer; get a restraining order and a psychiatric evaluation rather than kidnapping someone. In some states, I believe kidnapping still carries a death penalty, and it would be ironic to "save" one's child from a "cult," only to be executed for it.

Septegram 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

= Social therapy/Fred Newman edits by user BabayDweezil

Hi, Seeking on your opinion/input on BabyDweezil’s most current edits on both the Social Therapy and Fred Newman Wikipages. I added both Rick Ross’*Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements and Steven Hassan’s Steven Hassan’s Freedom of Mind Resource CenterFreedom of Mind links to their information on Fred Newman and Social therapy et al under “Sites critical of Social Therapy” on the Wiki social therapy page only. As they both are critics of Social Therapy, Fred Newman, et al. Both are also well known and regarded as knowledgeable on the subject of cults, destructive groups, etc. Therefore, It seemed quite reasonable to me to add these two additional links to the existing links of www.ex-iwp.or, www.dennisking.org and www.publiceye.org on the Social therapy page. Baby’s first edit as to add Template:Unverifiable-external-links above the “Sites critical of Social Therapy”. I have no objection to Baby’s BabyDweezil edit but sincerely felt that it belonged above all the external links – “Sites with information on Social Therapy” as well and not just above those critical of Newman because the Social therapy WebPages certainly do not provided all the information which consumers need to make and informed decision. I believe this is especially so as the Social Therapy websites are clear self-published and these websites offer no other point of view than that of Newman and believers in Social Therapy. Additionally, none of these websites mention to potential consumers (therapy patients) that Newman has quite a long history of having sexual relations with his patients and does not find this to be problematic. Nor do the websites mention that Newman and Social Therapy do not adhere to the APA Code of Ethics and that this is a politically based group. Nowhere on any Social Therapy Group WebPages are any of the above mentioned to potential future therapy clients. Since I think that this information is very relevant and pertinent which Newman and the Social Therapy Group is omitting I believe it is certainly fair for this information to be provided by other websites such as ex-iwp, Rick Ross, Steven Hassan, Dennis king, don’t you? After I moved this banner up above all the external links [1] , Baby then proceeded to delete all but publiceye.org from the list of site critical of Newman. [2] So I do not understand how BabyDweezil BabyDweezil can assert that it is against Wiki policy to omit sites which are critical of Newman/Social therapy yet not see the fault that self-published Social therapy sites are the only resources needed. Personally, I find Baby’s most current statement of “Freedomofmind.com and Rick Ross’ site are both commercial websites primarily designed to sell the services of these self proclaimed experts. Commercial websites are advised against as external links.” To be very hypocritical and self-defeating. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks, GrownUpAndWise 15:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 14:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC) GrownUpAndWise

Thanks for your response and tireless efforts; they are appreciated. I do believe Cberlet is also on the case. It seems to me, based upon Baby's latest "reasoning" behind deleting the www.ex-iwp.org link, that BabyDweezil is taking too many things very personally these days and I get the impression that he is quite worried about what the public will read on your site, ex-iwp, Rick Ross, and Publiceye.org . Actually, Baby's links gossipy message board, and personal attacks on wikipedia editors. is quite wonderful press and exposure for "us exers"! But if BabyDweezil really wants to give "exers" and this "Underdog" more press, I would suggest this link is better.

I don't know....I would think that such a believer in Social Therapy would be able to "perform this differently." I guess that mantra doesn't really work. GrownUpAndWise 02:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, BabyDweezil seems to be hard at work today deleting all the same links which both you and Cberlet keep restoring from the Fred Newman and Social Therapy Wiki pages but also from Lois Holzman and Leorora Fulani Wiki pages, too. I see no grounds for his deletions. Isn’t that considered to be vandalism? GrownUpAndWise 17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

Please refrain from making comments like this and this. I'm hardly a fan of Lyndon or his supporters - in fact, I find the entire matter to be cultishly bizarre - but Wikipedia has rules for good reasons - they improve the process.

I'm sure you're aware of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. My primary objection, however, to your postings on this talk page is that they violate Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, because they are not about improving the content of the article, but rather about trying to drive an editor away. What they're almost certainly likely to do, of course, is decrease the value of the talk page to other editors, as the page fills up with attacks and reponses and discussions of motivations and so on.

If you really need to comment to another editor about his/her behavior - and that should be limited to failure to comply with Wikipedia rules, not personal motivations - then please post such comments on the editor's user talk page, not on an article talk page.

Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 01:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel harassed, but the mechanisms for solving that are clear: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes provides an escalating set of processes ending with the Arbitration Committee. Rather than waste your time with endless arguing and reversions, I suggest you follow the path laid out in that policy. That might also prevent your patience from wearing out and you then getting into discussions about personal motivations, on article talk pages.

And, if you're not aware of it, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest pertains to this situation (I see no mention above, so I'm mentioning it here.) John Broughton | Talk 03:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with John Broughton. I know how frustrating it can be to deal with contentious editing. Please keep cool and refrain from making what could be perceived as personal remarks. Some of us take occasional breaks away from Wikipedia to relax, or edit non-contentious articles. Whatever works. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

2 cents

As much as you deserve to be slapped with a boxful of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF wet noodles for the obscene comments (and others) cited above, I'll forego the often juvenile Wikipenalties merry-go-round and simply request that you in the future refrain from, either obscenely or prosaically, in any way associating me with the noxious criminal enterprise that is the subject of the article where your comments appeared. And while I'm temporarily acting grown up, I should add that IMHO, you and Berlet are barking up a very wrong tree with the whole "coded discourse hidden meanings" business, and are unwittingly (hopefully) lending credence to the far more noxious aspects of that enterprise by going off on that tangent. You cannot verify the claims, and as such, yuo will lose that debate, and by virtue of losing, lend credibility to aspects of that organization (as well as it propagandistic persecution complex motifs) far beyond its semiotics. I would stick to the many more obvious creepy things. The gibberish, I'm afraid, is simply gibberish. Intentional? I don't know. But its what it appears to me they love having you focus on. Now back to the usual childishness. Cheers. BabyDweezil 01:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Political Cult

Why did you delete all that from Political Cult Dking? JFBurton 08:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I see what you mean now. Try and get an administrator to help you solve this issue. JFBurton 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Thanks. I hope my intervention doesn't provide Dweezil and the other fellow with a justification to remove references to LaRouche and the IWP. I tried to draw a clear line of demarcation between my concerns about Tourish re Militant - re accusations against the group being made which don't seem to be shared by anyone else and broadly supported accusations against IWP/LaRouche etc (indeed, doesn't the IWP accuse the LaRouche movement of being a cult?). I've read some of Tourish's stuff on the web and find it unconvincing and somewhat contrived. (I know T & W are co-authors but I think it's safe to assume that the book's references to Militant are by Tourish and the references to the WRP and its cothinnkers are by Wohforth). I haven't seen much of Wohlforth's writing on the Healyites (who I agree were a political cult) but I'd be curious to see his assessment of his own role and whether he acknowledges and takes responsibility for his abusive behavour towards his members or puts all the blame on Healy. General Idea 00:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche

A discussion has been started at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/medcab06-07. Input by you would be appreciated. Geo. Talk to me 05:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Coded messages

It's okay, I didn't think it was you. Some LaRouchies have tried adding it several times to this article and others. The point is to try to make the critics look foolish. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)