Talk:Cult apologist

Notability and importance

This entry does not meet general notability guidelines as per:

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]

This item is mentioned trivially in reliable sources. There is enough real content here for a Wictionary entry. If this is off the mark then expand the entry with reliable sources to show "significant coverage" in reliable sources that "address the subject directly in detail". The tag should stay until such time.PelleSmith (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Response: The article already includes multiple WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. I have already stated, above, that I intend to expand upon this article with multiple additional WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Please WP:AGF, and stop the disruption at this article. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again I ask you to explain these AGF comments. Tagging an article with issues has nothing to do with AGF. Once the entry is expanded then remove the tag. Currently the sources simply catalog usage of the term ... they do not add content and they certainly do not "address the subject directly in detail."PelleSmith (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Usage of term by Reliable Sources

"We’ve all been a little blind to each other’s concerns" says Zablocki, expressing the field’s new mood of rapprochement. "The bashers tend not to see the potential harm to religion as a whole from what they do, and the apologists tend to be so worried about religious persecution that they ignore the harm that some religions have done. ..." [1] (final paragraph in this article) EmmDee (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

He does not use the full term cult apologist nor is there any indication that his usage of the terms "bashers" and "apologists" imply any merit as meaningful categories outside of cult wars name calling. On the other hand maybe we should start Cult bashers with this reference as a foundation. Thoughts?PelleSmith (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cult Apology: A Modest (Typological) Proposal - Paper presented to the 2002 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Conference, November 1-3, 2002, Salt Lake City, Utah. Douglas E. Cowan, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies and Sociology,University of Missouri-Kansas City

'... I would like to offer instead a modest typology to help us more usefully conceptualize one of the terms that I suspect will become more and more a part of that debate. That is: the cult apologist. ...' [2] (end of first paragraph in this paper) EmmDee (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cowan is not using the term himself. He is trying to describe what those who do could mean by it. This is not an example of an "academic usage" of "cult apologist". Note also that Cowan writes on page 3: I am not aware of anyone who is using the term as anything other than a pejorative.PelleSmith (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this is a conference paper baring the disclaimer: "DO NOT CITE" across the top of its pages.PelleSmith (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pelle, I am not opposed to your suggestion (top of this talk page) to: 'write about criticisms of various NRM scholars based upon reliable scholarly sources and rename it (preferable outside of the politicized jargon of the cult-wars).' However: 1. scholarly sources are not necessarily the only reliable sources (AIU Wikipedia guidelines) 2. I can't think of a better title than 'Cult apologist(s)' for an article about criticisms of various NRM scholars. 3. There is enough RS material for an article on this topic (however titled). Eg.:

'... Social scientists seeking to debunk the brainwashing conjecture have often spoken as if extensive research has already been done on the behavior of cult participants and as if definitive conclusions could now be formed. [...] My work on the subject as well as that of Richard Ofshe, Marybeth Ayella, Robert Cialdini, Amy Siskand, Roy Wallis, Philip Zimbardo, and others has never been directly confronted, much less refuted by sociologists of religion. Rather it has been defamed, ridiculed, or ignored. There has been a sophisticated and subtle form of intellectual bullying by an entrenched majority within the discipline of a small minority composed of both sincere scholars and academic opportunists. ...' Source: Benjamin Zablocki, The Blacklisting of a Concept: The Strange History of the Brainwashing Conjecture in the Sociology of Religion, Nova Religio, Oct. 1997 of a Concept.pdf

'[...] Not listening to the opposition. Such intrusions of bias into the scholarly process makes it difficult, as Dr. Clark and I noted, for scholars to "truly listen to those tracts that imply that all cult critics, no matter what their academic affiliations, subscribe to a caricature of "brainwashing," in which physical brutality is used to turn victims into automata. Schuler (1983) has sharply criticized the "pro-cultists" who subscribe to this view of "brainwashing": Bromley and Shupe's notion of coercion doesn't go much further than the use of torture and threats of violence, so it is rare that anyone ever is guilty of unjustified manipulation of human behavior. They construct a straw man argument which they attribute to the critics of the cults that is easily refuted. [...] Certain "pro-cultists" have apparently had great fun smashing this straw man over and over again. But the positions my colleagues and I have advanced over the years are, I dare say, rather more nuanced (see Singer, Temerlin & Langone, 1990 for a recent formulation of the cultic processes frequently labeled "brainwashing"). [...] The repeated demolition of this straw man view of "brainwashing" undermines proper clinical treatment of ex-cultists and their families because clinicians and laypersons exposed only to this viewpoint are likely to fall into a counterproductive, victim-blaming posture. ...' Source: 'Research on Destructive Cults' Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.[3]

IMO 'Cult apologist(s)' is a better title than 'Social scientists seeking to debunk the brainwashing conjecture' or 'pro-cultists'. Or even 'Cult basher-bashers' :) EmmDee (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There is good reason why those in the academy who have criticized various NRM researchers do not use the term "cult apologist" and that rationale certainly extends to an encyclopedia -- it is not a meaningful category but a derisive term. "Cult apologist" would be a completely biased and unencyclopedic title for an entry about such criticism. I admit this is slightly exaggerated but it would be like using a racial slur as the title for an entry on an ethnic group. It is a notable term of course, just as the afore mentioned slur would be, but it is notable as a pejoritive within a larger arena of cultural politics and that is all. As such it can be summed up in a Wictionary entry.PelleSmith (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How about 'Criticism of NRM Scholars' as an article title?EmmDee (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That takes care of the POV issues and would make using the scholarly criticism apropos. I'm not sure about notability but that is another issue.PelleSmith (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose renaming or moving this article. However, the type of term being discussed could be fodder for a more extensive article, on "Criticism of NRM Scholars", in general. The very fact that PelleSmith (talk · contribs) himself has recently added even more sources to this article, support its existence here. I haven't had time yet to delve into expansion efforts, though I have found over fifty additional possible sources to utilize, and I will so so soon. Cirt (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And these are reliable sources utilizing "cult apologist" as a meaningful referent? Or do they simply discuss the fact that the term is a pejorative? I have not added any sources myself of the former kind because until you produce them I'll be convinced they don't exist. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Contextually,it's interesting to note that well known critic Stephen Kent appears to reject the use of the term in anything but a pejorative context: [...] "We neither accuse Lewis (or any other researchers) of being" cult apologist[s]" nor do we claim that Kent is a "victim of a 'cult conspiracy."' (Indeed, throughout our analysis we avoid use of pejorative labels against either individuals or groups.)[...]" from Clarifying Contentious Issues: A Rejoinder to Melton, Shupe, and Lewis. Skeptic 7 No.1 (1999): 21-26 cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Uses of term

That section appears to be a haphazard collection of uses, violating WP:NEO. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The sect should be expanded more. The sect presents historical discussion of usage. -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)