Talk:NXIVM

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Simon Dodd (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 24 May 2018 (→‎NXIVM, Reliable sources were provided). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Globe and Mail stories

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/bronfman-heir-launches-canada-libya-initiative/article2372277/

In the course of talking about something else, this G&M article says that "Until now, most of the publicity surrounding Sara Bronfman and her sister, Clare, has focused on their devotion to the so-called “human potential” business NXIVM (pronounced “nexium”) based in Albany, N.Y."

It also references the 2003 Forbes quoting Bromfman Sr. “I think it's a cult,” and says that Rick Ross "a cult expert" "reportedly faced legal action from NXIVM over similar claims" without explaining that they sued him for saying it, and that he won the case.

The news is that Bronfman has temporarily stopped working for NXIVM to focus on her own projects and her upcoming wedding.

It refers to "the negative press over NXIVM" but mentions none other than the Forbes. She says the accusations about NXIVM aren't true and that such accusations are to be expected about any organization that does anything (good) in the world.

The rest is off-topic, about Bromfman's new projects to help democracy in Lybia by expanding trade with Canada. But this is clearly the least damning article at least tangently about NXIVM that we've seen, but even it says that it's primarily known in the press negatively and as a cult, and so could be used to cite that fact.

What is new it contains thatthat is new is the fact that she's at least for now getting away from it and on with her life without it at least for a while. Chrisrus (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-level marketing

The claim that NXIVM is a multi-level marketing organization has been added to the article. The first time it was added, I removed the description because the claim was not just MLM, but a "pyramid scheme", which is illegal in all of the U.S., and the reference added did not make that claim. The current claim is that NXIVM is an MLM, but the word "pyramid" has disappeared. However, the sources are problematic - one describes a court filing which claims that NXIVM is an MLM which is illegal in New York; the other source says only that "critics described" it as an MLM in a previous story from another source.

I'm not entirely clear if saying a corporation has been run as a criminal enterprise is subject to WP:BLP, because no specific person is named, but it seems that stronger sourcing is required for this claim for this company. Argyriou (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search of NXIVM reveals a host of reliable sources that refer to the company as MLM. I could add them, but I fear that will only result in you reverting me a third straight time. And since you brought up WP:BLP, sources also describe Raniere as a multi-level marketer himself. I did notice that you left "Multi-level marketing" as the industry description in the Infobox, which makes me wonder: Are you OK with saying NXIVM is part of the MLM industry, but not an MLM itself? I am a bit confused by this and how that fits into your "pyramid" concerns, which, I agree are valid given the legality of such schemes, but that's a topic for another day.
I don't want to get into a revert war, so I will throw this out for others' consideration: If you can find a reliable source that says NXIVM is NOT an MLM, then that would constitute a lack of consensus. In that case, I do believe the description should be left off this article and NXIVM should not be on the List of multi-level marketing companies. If not, let's pick from the myriad sources that do say the company is an MLM, and use them to state as much here on Wikipedia. That seems only natural and logical to me. Do any other editors have a better suggestion? Kerdooskis (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is adequate sourcing to support listing the company as an MLM. I have seen no sources that contest the claim. There appears to be no basis for your addition of this term being reverted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are few more sources that support the designation,[1][2][3][4][5][6] and I suspect there are others. I see nothing equivocal about the MLM aspect in any sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, MLM is not illegal; but pyramid schemes are. Here's a 1998 speech by the former General Counsel of the US Federal Trade Commission that discusses pyramid schemes and distinguishes them from legitimate MLM. A well-sourced claim that NXIVM is an MLM is not disparaging and should be uncontroversial; a claim that it's a pyramid scheme should be very carefully sourced and be made only with painstaking attention to accuracy. TJRC (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forget pyramid scheme. How much sourcing do we need to call it a cult?  :-o NickCT (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm calling it a cult, whether anyone else does or not. There is some shit going on with these people that would make L. Ron Hubbard say "what the fuck"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.231.167.121 (talk • contribs)

Mainstream media referred to it as a cult, and the charges are human trafficking. That is enough to say it is a self titled self-help group that appears to be a front for illegal activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C002:D83A:9119:D26F:59A4:1D1D (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cite web

69.181.23.220 (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal Discussion Invitation

A merge proposal was made to merge Keith Raniere with NXIVM in November 2017, I have revived the merge proposal. Please see discussion here. Your comments in the discussion would be appreciated since the page is within this WikiProject. -- Waddie96 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's already merged and I don't think it should be, particularly now that Raniere is in the news. Makes me wonder if someone merged the articles to hide something. I think someone should revert the merge until some discussion takes place.2605:6000:6947:AB00:DCE7:24E6:8FE5:6D49 (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merging an article doesn't hide anything on Wikipedia. If there's something about him in there that's relevant to this article, and that can be verified with WP:Reliable sources, by all means please add it. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@2605:6000:6947:AB00:DCE7:24E6:8FE5:6D49: please see merger discussion here. The consensus was to merge. Waddie96 (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Not Merge Keith Raniere with NXIVM?

I suggest we do not {{Merge}} Keith Raniere article with NXIVM article. Within the context of their new and present 2018 legal challenges, I'm re-opening this discuss here as this previous 2017 discussion was closed.

This is my proposal to not merge. I suggest two articles. One for NXIVM and one for Keith Raniere. Mainly because within the context of their present legal challenges, legally speaking according to the US laws, NXIVM is a corporation/company. In turn, this means NXIVM and Keith Raniere are two different legal entities. In other words, and translated to English, this means criminal charges may affect one entity without affecting the other entity. All are welcome to join the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keith_Raniere#Not_Merge_with_NXIVM? Francewhoa (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalized or not?

DoJ's filings style it as Nxivum, as standard English would require; the group itself seems to prefer all-caps. Which should we use?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems more appropriate to use NXIVM as that is the WP:COMMONNAME. Nxivm is how the DoJ files it, but is that how the rest of the world would too? Waddie96 (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Key People Question

With a number of reports suggesting Allison Mack was NXIVM's second-in-command at the time of her arrest, would it be accurate to add her to the "Key people" section in the infobox? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • My concern is that infoboxes can be a way to get something into an article (or to unduly emphasize something already in the article) in a way that avoids normal scrutiny and context. There are sources that characterize Mack's role in the leadership, but those sources tend to be either a) unreliable sources, b) the "entertainment" division of reliable sources (e.g.), or, "best" of all, c) the "entertainment" division of unreliable sources e.g.). In the mine-run of cases, those characterizations seem to be less *reporting of facts* but slipshod and sensationalist *editorial characterizations*. (What does "second in command" mean in organizations lacking formal structures? What does "key"? Is Luca Brasi a "key" member of the Family? Maybe. Is Tom Hagen? Probably, but is he "second in command"?) So I think we should be chary about adding things to the infobox that aren't established beyond serious controversy in the text of the article. Whatever Nxivm *is* (controversial), Raniere and Salzman are running it (uncontroversial). With one eye on BLP, *characterizing* Mack's role seems more on the controversial side of the line—a dangerous business best dealt with in the body of the article if at all. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple WP:RS establish beyond question that Mack is a "key person" in the organization. Not all sources pertaining to Mack's role in leadership are unreliable or entertainment-based as alleged above, and it only takes one or two good ones to establish the fact for inclusion in this article. Case in point.[7][8] Not that it necessarily matters whether source are entertainment based. I wouldn't use TMZ but a less gossipy industry source like Variety could be perfectly acceptable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Craig Federighi is Apple's senior vice president of Software Engineering" is a neutral, factual statement. "Craig Federighi is a key member of Apple's leadership" is editorializing: It's not just reporting a person's job but characterizing their position and value in relation to others. And it drags us into a thicket: What does it mean to be a "key" member of Apple's leadership team? Which senior VPs are not also key members of that team? Which non-VPs are key members? And that's in the relatively straightforward context of a company with defined positions; a cult, almost by definition, doesn't have that kind of precision. If reliable sources describe Mack's role in the organization, the article can report that, but *characterizing* that involvement is something we should hesitate to do in the context of the article, let alone in a contextless infobox.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about a legit company like Apple (and the comparison to a secretive sex slave cult operation like NXIVM is rather absurd). The key personnel of Apple have been well publicized and the company is publicly traded, so the information is in the public domain. Not so with NXIVM (quite the contrary in fact -- it "operates in secrecy"[9]), so we have to use the best sources available as per WP:FRINGE. I was also correcting the statement that all the sources that describe Mack as a key player were somehow unreliable; clearly not so. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources we use say this is a cult or "cult-like"

Several sources we use say the subject of this article is a cult or "cult-like". This is the most significant thing about this organisation and so should be mentioned straight away. I made such a change but it was reverted by Fbergo.

Fbergo seems to think we can't verify this, despite the numerous sources cited. If we don't think those sources are reliable, we shouldn't use them in the article, but I think they are and presumably most editors of this article think so too since the sources have been in the article for a while.

I didn't add any new sources. I didn't really add many new words either - the lead already said "News reports and former members have described NXIVM as a cult." - I moved this information into the first sentence.

Yaris678 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Multi-level marketing item above in this talk page deals with this. To change the primary definition of the article's subject one would need reliable sources affirming that NXIVM is not a multi-level marketing and never engaged in its alleged primary business, selling personal and professional development seminars. Yes, the company may be just a front for the cult thing, it could be half-and-half for seminars/cult, or the cult thing could be a small part of the operation. As far as I know there are no reliable sources on that, any claim about it is speculation. The cult operations are under investigation and we should keep speculation, opinions and media sensasionalism off the encyclopaedic article. Fbergo (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^ Seconded. Yaris, as you point out, "the lead already sa[s] 'News reports and former members have described NXIVM as a cult,'" so it's hardly as if the article's hiding those (probably correct) allegations. Raniere's going to trial in October; Mack will presumably flip before that or be tried at the same time; and more indictments are (we're told) coming. So the truth will out in due course. In the meantime: WP:NOW.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must agree, as well. There are certainly cult-like elements to NXIVM, but the extent of those elements are unknown; let's wait until the legal proceedings are further along, or even over, before changing our definition of the subject: as it currently stands, it's quite within the realm of possibility that it did engage in some MLM, regardless of extent, and, ultimately, it's best to contribute with what we know we know. Should the judge and/or jury find that the subject was indeed a cult, we shall change it then; until that time, if such a time occurs, however, let us speak about that which we know and can verify. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 02:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI: A gentle reminder

WP:SELFPROMOTE: "If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions.."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Child Prostitution

Add "Child Prostitution" Category?

According to the United States Department of Justice's indictment unsealed at:

The criminal charges above includes, but are not limited to, “18 U.S.C § 1591”. Translated to English this criminal charge means "sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion". Source at https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-prostitution-children

In 1591 context above, the term "child" means "If the victim was under the age of 14 or if force, fraud, or coercion were used, the penalty is not less than 15 years in prison up to life. If the victim was aged 14-17, the penalty shall not be less than 10 years in prison up to life. Anyone who obstructs or attempts to obstruct the enforcement of this statute faces as many as 20 years imprisonment. Defendants who are convicted under this statute are also required to pay restitution to their victims for any losses they caused." Sources:

Still according to the source above, if convicted of the charges, both Mack and Raniere each face a minimum of 15 years and up to life in prison

Related news & information

The reported information above is significant. I suggest to add the "Child Prostitution" Category to the Wikipedia article.

Francewhoa (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested draft about sex trafficking of children

About the United States Department of Justice's indictment unsealed and their criminal charge of sex trafficking of children above. I suggest to add the following draft sentences to the article, under "2018 arrests and indictments" section. With sources.

In March 2018, Raniere was arrested and indicted on a variety of charges related to NXIVM, including sex trafficking, sex trafficking conspiracy, conspiracy to commit forced labor.[1][2][3] The United States Department of Justice's criminal charges include, but are not limited to, 18 U.S.C § 1591[4]. Which means "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion". If convicted of all charges including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C § 1591, both Allison Mack and Keith Raniere each face a minimum of 15 years and up to life in prison.[5][6]
Sources

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference nbcny1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ O'Reilly, Andrew (2018-05-04). "Trial set for 'Smallville' actress Allison Mack, alleged sex cult leader Keith Raniere". Fox News. Retrieved 2018-05-16.
  3. ^ Siemaszko, Corky (2018-05-04). "Self-help guru denies enslaving, branding women in Nxivm sex cult". NBC News. Retrieved 2018-05-16.
  4. ^ Parlato, Frank (2018-04-26). "Allison Mack and sex slaver Raniere may have trafficked teen girls from Chihuahua, Mexico". Artvoice. Retrieved 2018-05-16.
  5. ^ O'Reilly, Andrew (2018-04-24). "'Smallville' actress Allison Mack out on bail, facing 15 years to life in prison". Fox News. Retrieved 2018-05-16.
  6. ^ Park, Andrea (2018-04-21). ""Smallville" actress Allison Mack arrested for role in NXIVM sex cult". CBS News. Retrieved 2018-05-16.

Francewhoa (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The indictment is not only a primary source, but a court document. WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 11:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Simon Dodd :) Thanks for your contributions. I'm assuming you're referring to one of the suggested media secondary source. Specifically the secondary source Artvoice's article at https://artvoice.com/2018/04/25/allison-mack-and-sex-slaver-raniere-may-have-trafficked-teen-girls-from-chihuahua-mexico/
Are you interested to suggest another secondary source? How about removing this secondary source and replacing it with another secondary source? Or how about removing this secondary source and keeping the other secondary sources in this draft above?
I agree that within the context of this article, primary sources are not appropriate. Such as a direct link to the indictment PDF file hosted by the US DJ as a primary source would not be appropriate. I was not suggesting this. Secondary sources seems appropriate within the context of this article. In other words, Artvoice is a secondary source. Not a primary source. Related to this the WP:BLPPRIMARY reads: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."
With infinite Wikipedia love ♥ Francewhoa (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've extracted the material that you added to the first paragraph of the section, and moved it to the end of the section: It references events described in paragraph two and so its inclusion in paragraph one is out of sequence. I also cleaned up the writing. I have, however, let it substantially intact, even though I think it's a WP:OR problem; let's see if anyone else has anything to say on that before excising it, though.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards inclusion about the child trafficking detail; would be ideal if there were more sources other than just Artvoice, which is a bit weak to support all of this. Was it in fact mentioned in other sources as well? As for the primary source (court docket), it should definitely be cited as well to augment the secondary source, as per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewrite, 20180518

Given the amount of material circulating and the number of changes made in recent months (such changes tend to be accretive), it seemed advisable to do a major rewrite/cleanup from the ground up, and I have done that while also adding additional reporting from places like Vanity Fair and The Hollywood Reporter. Hopefully it now has a more coherent structure and narrative thread. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it be a SYNTH problem to add to the description of Bronfman's blogpost the statement that 'The same post confirmed the existence of DOS, stating of the "secret sisterhood": “[W]hile I am not and never have been a member of the sorority, ...[it] has not coerced nor abused anyone. In fact, the sorority has truly benefited the lives of its members, and does so freely. I find no fault in a group of women ... freely taking a vow of loyalty and friendship with one another to feel safe while pushing back against the fears that have stifled their personal and professional growth. It’s not for any of us to judge how they, or anyone else, choose to advance their lives and values.”' The upshot's clear, but is it clear enough?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about SYNTH but there might be a WP:UNDUE issue if there is disproportionate focus on the Bronfmans. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think of it in terms of emphasizing the Bronfmans; the significance strikes me that, in the context of reports of a "secret sisterhood" (sisterhood=sorority) which goes by various names including (but not necessarily limited to) DOS and The Vow, in the context of Raniere's lawyers taking an "everything was consensual" tack, a senior NXIVM person is coming out with a statement saying that she has never been a member of "the sorority" but that "the sorority" is a good thing and it's not for us to judge them "freely taking a vow." I mean, it couldn't be any clearer that the statement confirms three things, that DOS exists as alleged, that it's called "the sorority" in NXIVM's internal jargon, and it's well enough known within NXIVM for there to be internal jargon for it. Qua juror, boom. A picture of what's been going on is now become clear. Qua WP editor... Whether that can go in... I put it into Bronfman's article first, but while I was doing the rewrite on this article I got cold feet about whether it wasn't a SYNTH problem. I don't think it's an UNDUE problem at all, so if no one shares my SYNTH concerns, I'll plan on dropping it in this evening. Waiting until then for further comment.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Have at it. I look forward to seeing your addition. Cheers! Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NXIVM, Reliable sources were provided

Moved from Talk:General Ization

I provided a direct reference to the official indictment in which Title Code 18, §1591(b)(1) is associated with the charges against Keith Raniere and Allison Mack. The indictment was sourced from from justice.gov. Notice the domain .gov: "The .gov domain facilitates collaboration among government-to-government, government-to-business, and government-to-citizen entities. The domain hosts only official, government sites at the federal, state, and local levels, including federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaskan Native groups, known as Native Sovereign Nations (NSNs). The .gov domain provides the official and trusted internet presence for these government entities." Source

The second source referenced Cornell Law School explanation of Section 1591(b)(1). In case this is deemed an unreliable source I can directly reference the U.S. Government Publishing Office: §1591.

Do we agree that these references are reliable and also clearly state that Keith Raniere and Allison Mack has been charged with T. 18, U.S.C., §1591(b)(l) (amongst others)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeanuMoowgliie (talk • contribs) 13:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do. However, you are relying exclusively on the chapter title of §1591 to infer that Raniere and Mack are accused of trafficking children. That section includes two specifications: "if the offense was effected by means of force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or by any combination of such means, or if the person recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, or obtained had not attained the age of 14 years at the time of such offense" (emphasis added). There is nothing in the indictment that indicates that the criterion related to persons under 14 is satisfied; rather they are charged with inducing using threats and coercion. Your inference is not supported by the indictment and is synthesis. General Ization Talk 13:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPRIMARY.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NXIVM&oldid=842769812"