Talk:Keith Raniere/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Keith Raniere. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Early Failure in Business

I am concerned with this section in general considering the facts that I listed above regarding the Consumer's Buyline case which I will repost here taken right from the Court document dealing with the case:

HELEN RHODES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. KEITH RANIERE and CONSUMERS' BUYLINE, INC. Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Civil Action 92-10877K STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT H. Counsel of plaintiff have made a thorough study of the legal principles applicable to the Settled Claims, have conducted extensive discovery relating to those claims, have thoroughly evaluated the likelihood of success if the case proceeded to trial. The decision of Plaintiff and her Counsel to settle is not an admission that the Amended Complaint lacks merit, but is based primarily on Defendants' weak financial condition and inability to pay an significant judgement which might be rendered in this matter. Based upon these undertakings, the Plaintiff and her counsel have concluded that it will be impossible to obtain a judgment, whether by trial or settlement, which will provide any restitution for the putative Class alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, that the Defendants are unable to pay the costs of any settlement to the putative Class, that the injunctive relief provided for herein will benefit the putative Class, and that nothing herein will bar or prejudice any member of the putative Class from seeking any relief against the Defendants. I. The Defendants contend that the Amended Complaint is meritless and have at all times denied, and contain to deny, that they have committed, or have threatened to committed, or have threatened to commit, any wrongful acts or violations of law to any nature whatsoever in connection with the allegations in either the original complaint or Amended Complaint, or any other matter related in any way to any aspect of CBI or its business and operations, or its dealings with CBI members or distributors.

With that said, I am going to integrate these facts into the section. At issue for me is whether or not this is actually important to have its own section and if so, then I feel we should at least modify its title. U21980 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have integrated the relevant facts of the case via quoting the source document. I figure the attorneys involved with the case can speak better for the actual circumstances than any of us could. With that said, I also went ahead and changed the section name to simply Consumer's Buyline since that is what it solely deals with. U21980 (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible Background Edits to Include

Hi there everyone, I wanted to consider the following edits to be included within the page: "Keith exhibited athletic talents during his youth, tying the New York high school record for the 100-yard dash and becoming East Coast judo champion at 12. By 13, it is claimed that Raniere was competent in third-year university level math and was proficient in computer programming." U21980 (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Aside from this being ridiculous boasting typical of young prodigies who flame out, do you have a source for these accomplishments? We really do need sourcing.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how the information being considered for inclusion can be considered "ridiculous boasting". Along those lines I am also unsure of this trend of young prodigies who flame out, did you have specific people in mind with that comment? (for reference sake) The information mentioned above is actually taken from a publication cited elsewhere in the article. U21980 (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The 2006 novel An Abundance of Katherines discusses the subject, I am sure there are other sources, not that its completely relevant here. I am being confrontational to some degree to try to counteract your apparent bias.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, there is really no need to be confrontational. I am just asking for a review of the material above for inclusion. I am not sure how the above edit makes me biased, I am trying to flesh out background information. U21980 (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Cited information describing his early life seems relevant. I agree, that any "boasting" should be limited, but in this case including athletic ability doesn't fit the mold.Tomohawkmama (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of conjecture, either, U. What I think we would all appreciate is a forthright explanation as to why Raniere made this statement about "having people killed." You seem to suggest it was in defensiveness. (That he's been a target, a "victim" of others.) Hmmm. It comes across to me as a threat, yes, a defensive one. How do you see it? ...I know, why don't we ask him?

Fairsfair7 (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The cattiness here is unhelpful. If U disagrees with you, then respect the opinion. Has U violated the rules? As you pointed out more recently, wikipedia rules allow for our success. Let's focus on that goal. Tomohawkmama (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Tomohawkmama, is it too much to ask for a little respect? Even Keyser/Link seemed to have more respect from some of these editors, even though he blatantly abused wiki rules in his posting of content and his sockpuppetry. U21980 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Founder of NXIVM

I was wondering why we aren't including any details about what NXIVM is within this section. It seems strange that we are going to include details like this without giving the reader any more information:

The local papers published reports of ex-NXIVM members and local people describing the group as a frightening cult."[5] Responding to such claims, Raniere has stated that "there's nothing in his operation that makes it a cult, and indeed, many enrollees see Executive Success as a good coaching program and nothing more."[6] U21980 (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless we merge the articles, we can tell the reader what it is by merely linking to it in the lead, making the description unnessasary. And also that part of his life in the body explains what NXIVM is. We don't need to tell the reader anything about NXIVM in the lead that we say in the aricle NXIVM and if we link to it in the lead. You're not really supposed to cite stuff in leads, anyway. The lead is the summary of the article that follows in the body, where the citations are. The rest of the article is the citation to what you say in a lead. We can explain about it, we have to in fact, in the body, as a natural course of writing his bio we'll have to explain what it is there. So that's why I left the description of it out of the lead, if they want to know right away what it is they can link to that article, or they can just read on into the body and find out the details about it.

I agree with you my friend, Milowent was pretty adamant about inserting edits labelling Raniere's programs as being a "cult" so I went ahead and added the repetitive comment in the lead since he was unwilling to go without some mention of it there (since it is more balanced anyways and actually cited by multiple sources). Please feel free to remove it if you have not already done so. U21980 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to take the opportunity to argue against the merging of these articles, since NXIVM is its own distinct entity that should get its own page. It may have been founded by Raniere, but it is bigger than just one person. U21980 (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, my argument above was that if we were going to list criticism about NXIVM on the lead in Raniere's page, why shouldn't we at least write down a few words as to what NXIVM. I'm definitely not in favor of adding entire sentences about it. U21980 (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Metroland Compromise

Considering the fact that we have not been able to come to a consensus regarding the validity of the material from Metroland, I have replaced the sentence: "The local papers published reports of ex-NXIVM members and local people describing the group as a frightening cult." to the more general and neutral: NXIVM has been called a successful executive coaching program by its supporters and a "cult" organization by its detractors."

Please let me know if this problematic! U21980 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, can you source the Raniere quote? Fairsfair7 (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All the information has already been sourced on the page itself, but to comply with the request here on the discussion page: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/088.html. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance! U21980 (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the solution to my mind wasn't to remove the statement, but rather to add more than just the Metroland citation to support the statement that ex-memebers, neighbors, family members describe it as a frightening cult. Metroland does, but so does Forbes, Mcleans, The Gazette, the Times-Union, New York Magazine, and more. So if the Metroland citation was problematic just add more citations or use better ones to cite the fact that we all know is true that such people have decribed it exactly that way, as a frightening cult. You can also use many of the same citations to say that there are many who thought it was a helpful experience. But in order to read that entire Forbes article for example and use it for just those purposes while ignoring the basic gist and main points of those articles is to misrepresent them. They are strongly negative articles, all of them, and if you've read them you'd know it. They do mention those that praise the "classes" or whatever you call them because they are good journals and that's their job. But to use articles like the forbes one the way you, U219, have used them is to misrepresent those articles, and it's wrong to cherry-pick facts out of an article to support certain ideas while ignoring the main point of the articles you are supposed to be giving the reader a fair summary of. Chrisrus (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well Chrisrus, I'm afraid that you have my intentions wrong here. If you wish to go ahead and add in more citations, please feel free to do so, it's not the information that I find problematic, but the source of the information which was a subject of some contention earlier in the page and the way it is presented (presenting one perspective) . With that said, if there are some people who clearly support NXIVM or there courses, should I not mention them? No disrespect intended, but if that is considered cherry-picking, the same accusation came be made for almost every user that is anti-NXIVM here, who cherry-picks facts about the Ross case and about the Consumers Buyline case. Why is it that other people were editing those sections and portraying Raniere as a criminal in regards to his actions in the case, when the facts showed otherwise? Even after I mentioned the facts of the case, no one made any effort to insert it into the article. So if we are going to criticize edits on those grounds, then there is definitely enough criticism to go around, would you agree? U21980 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

To my mind, cherry-picking means reading an article like the forbes and using it only to cite statements like "some people think it's a fine organization" or "he is very smart" and totally missing the main thrust of the articles, which is "Look out readers for this creepy cult." People who are the opposite of KR fans wouldn't have to resort to cherry-picking. You could accuse them of some kind of WP:BLP violation maybe, but as the main gist and the additions they want to add are the same it's not a case of cherrypicking as I understand the term. I'll type this "WP:CHERRYPICKING" and we'll see if it turns blue or red. Chrisrus (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Cherry-picking, by your definition could also include completely neglecting factual information about Consumers Buyline, as you went through and had free reign with the page. I placed the information there for review and you or anyone else could have added it in. Once again, I am sick of the "fan" label. I remember when we initially met, you had the nerve to come to my talk page and make a post about me being a "fan". I am trying to be civil here, so I'll say this, if you want to include any information about Raniere that can be gathered from WP:RS, I have no problem, but don't get upset and revert to making accusations about me when I am trying to present a neutral point of view here. U21980 (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Raniere's "detractors" appear to include just about every news article written about the guy, I do not agree with the change. I propose that U21980 be banned from editing this article any further, this is a joke.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Banned from editing the article? A bit harsh don't you think? It's not as if I was tossing on contentious edits without trying to discuss them here on the discussion board. Almost since the first time you have interacted with me, you have been confrontational and really disrespectful, and I really do not appreciate that. I am open to discussing this issue with you about the change, but all I did was add a different perspective. If you would like only one view represented on this page, please feel free to make that explicitly known. U21980 (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be somewhat uncivil, but no one seems to be getting thru to you. I don't give a shit about anyone's personal views, I want the project to have unbiased articles based on reliable sources to the best extent possible. Its quite clear you have a personal bias seeking to protect Mr. Raniere. The article is a mess because everyone has axes to grind. I never heard of Mr. Raniere before I happened on this article, and doubt I will ever hear him mentioned outside of wikipedia.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No one seems to be getting through to me? I did not actively start editing the article until others users did, and I have been trying to portray a second view help with your mission to present an unbiased article. The Consumers Buyline case is an example of that. After proposing edits from a Court document of the case which actually stated facts about the case, no one went ahead and added it in. I have no personal bias, but am also trying to help shape this page to a neutral work, yet I am seemingly attacked at every turn by other users who should know better. Please assume "good faith" about my conduct here, as I am not accusing others outright of mischievous activity (outside of users like Keyser/Link who have a blatant disregard for Wiki rules in general). U21980 (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a question about an edit. One of your recent edits states that Raniere is not a reliable source? I was just posting his response to the "cult" claims that are mentioned in the lead. Why isn't that relevant to the discussion? U21980 (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Milo, I'm with you, but I disagree about banning him and would hope that you won't propose that again as it's a distraction. Please let's get back to what you were doing before and continue working the many unused or underused RS's we have or adding more RS's and give up trying to change him. There's no way trying a ban will work unless he steps over the same line repeatedly and he's just going to keep walking up to it and backing off and do you see where that leads? It leads to you dealing with him more than doing your good work on the article, because how can you be helping transfer and incorporate important information from the RSs if you're off involved in some tedious banning procedure? That'd be playing into the Espians' hands. Of course he'll be in the way a lot, but so long as we stick to standard procedure he just can't win because he can't stop us doing what we are supposed to do. Chrisrus (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus, "steps over the same line repeatedly"? I'd like to know what "line" you are referring to. Also, how am I being in the way? Sad, here I thought we were actually going to try and work together, but it does not seem like you have any interest at all. I have had my moments where my conduct has not been civil (particularly towards Keyser) but I've been respectful towards all other editors, and I am really sick of being talked about in this manner as if I am toting around some agenda or trying to damage the page. Enough is enough already! U21980 (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like an explanation. How exactly is U close to violating wiki rules? We all need to remember the Wikipedia:Harassment policy against threats to disrupt another editor's work.Tomohawkmama (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just look at the sources and look at his work. If you don't see the gulf we do, fine, but based on that evidence it's clear to many of us that he's out to misrepresent the sources despite repeated denials. Nevermind, even if he is (is "he" a woman?) trying to misrepresent them, the thing to do, as I say, is not to get all like Milo was getting and be all "Stop that!" to him but to simply faithfully represent the sources and do everything else we're supposed to do; i.e.: just keep working and nevermind bickering which defeats the purpose of getting the article to accurately reflect what the sources say in service to the reader. I hope I'm done talking about U219. Chrisrus (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus, lets be fair in what we say here, the same criticism could be made about the refusal to add factual information about Consumers Buyline after it was added on the discussion page. Would you agree that this constitutes a "gulf"? What I don't understand is that I did not add any substantial edits to the page after it was locked without trying to post material on the pages to include or my concerns about other issues; I only did so after the page started to be actively edited with other substantial edits being added in and I haven't included substantial edits outside of the Consumers Buyline edit which I posted in its entirety on a discussion board and waited a week to see if anyone responded to it. I am interested in consensus here, and that is why I am utilizing this discussion board, so we can avoid needless edit warring. I have not deleted information that others have included which has been adequately sourced, and have not misrepresented any sources.

To be honest, I am tired of this bickering and would rather work together to seek consensus for edits. I want this to be the last time we talk about what you perceive to be misrepresentation about my part. To be frank, if you feel that I am that problematic, feel free to report me, otherwise can we please move on? Anyways, I appreciate your reading of this message and I look forward to your response! U21980 (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Archiving Certain Discussions from the Talk Page

Hi Everyone,

I am proposing that we archive certain sections of this talk page which have become irrelevant or are not active topics of discussion since the page has become a bit bulky and a little harder to navigate at this point. Any objections? U21980 (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone could set up auto archiving, I suppose.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to auto archiving some of the material from this page? U21980 (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Due to a lack of response, I went ahead and placed the command for an auto-archive of sections which have no responses for the past 7 days. Links will be put up for the material that is archived, so we can access them if there is a need to. This should help us to navigate the page and get rid of fluff that has been on here since the page's inception. Let me know what you think! U21980 (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris removes the other organizations and the New York Post material

I'm about to remove both the bit about his other organizations and the bit where he's caught on tape speaking of being involved in violence. I'll tell you why, one at a time.

The first one is just from his website, and we have no independant confirmatino that these wonderful-sounding organizations that he supposedly created even exist, or if they do, to what extent he's notable. He's not notable for these little organization his website claims he's created, anyway, as Wikipedia has never heard of either of them. If you have independant WP:RS that these organizations a) exist and b) have ever done anything notable than we can put it back in but for now I'm taking that bit out.

The second one is freaking interesting but I'm sorry to say, we don't cite the Post. The Post is a tabloid and a rag and not a serious media orgaization everybody knows it even you so don't bother arguing because rhetorically you'll fail, but more importantly, you've got plenty of citations you can use to say all kinds of horrible truths about the creep but sorry you're just going to have to find something from somewhere other than the NYPOST. Scroll up, there's plenty of unused material, you don't need the Post, have at'm, enjoy, but NO POST. Chrisrus (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of the edits on the page, I was under the impression that we were going to discuss these issues before making any type of major edits on the page. With that said, there are a few things I have issues with, however we do see eye to eye on The Post. I am concerned about your tone however in regards to Raniere. I'm not a fan of the guy, but let's just be careful about attacking him personally. U21980 (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How did the word "cult" come out of the lead in the past day? That needs to stay.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that classification more appropriate for the NXIVM page? The "cult" issue is addressed throughout the rest of the page U21980 (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Milowent, "cult" needs to stay in given that so many sources, including FORBES MAGAZINE, site it as such. Again, I'm very curious to know where U21980 independently came up with that Raniere quote. Chrisrus, whatever kind of "rag" the NY Post may be, when someone claiming to be a genius and "ethical" leader is videotaped saying he's had people killed he should either crawl under a rock, certainly not expect to be glorified on Wikipedia or anywhere, unless he has a damn good explanation for it. U2, perhaps you can help with that. :) 01:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairsfair7 (talk • contribs)

I don't object to what was said, but merely to using the Post to cite it. If we can't find another way to cite it, I'm sorry to say that we can't use it. Also, it should be noted that in the video it's clear he's saying in his own enfuriatingly annoying way "don't bring up the fact that I lost all the money with my schemes, I'm the big boss so don't give me any backtalk. I'm tough and have lots of hired thugs so don't mess with me." But while "I had people killed because of my beliefs" probably means what you think it does, it could theoretically mean something else, because the same construction is used to mean things like "I've had my wallet stolen" (i.e.: I've had a bad thing happen to me) or "I've had the walls painted" where you caused it to happen but didn't do it yourself. Like you could say "I've had good friends killed by bears" or "I've had my enemies hunted down and shot". In either case it goes "subject, "to have", object, past participle", so "I've had people killed" probably means "I've ordered people killed", in which case he's a murderer, or "I've had this misfortune, people I know be killed by others". So either way the police should be called because someone was murdered, and he knew about it, but didn't call the police. It's very disturbing, and everyone, especially U219 and others who respect this guy, should see it, and I thank you for bringing it to my personal attention because it's pretty amazing, but I'm sorry we can't use it in the article if it means citing the Post which a long time ago was a respectable newspaper but now is just not allowed as a citation at Wikipedia. Please agree because if we use the Post, it sets a dangerous precedent that Wikipedia uses trash tabloid sources for it's articles. Has no one else reported this? Someone definately should, and if they do, go ahead and put it in. The reader would be well served. Chrisrus (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I see your points, Chrisrus. Can we directly link to the video on "you tube" and let viewers interpret the Raniere 'interview' for themselves? Haven't been able to find another source yet, apart from the blog that some are having a problem with. To balance it, we could mention that the alleged filmmakers are being sued and site the Albany TU article. Fairsfair7 (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Gee that's a good question. I guess the answer is "I don't know" but I'll try typing WP:YOUTUBE and we'll both find out if it turns red or blue. If it's read, we can ask around for the exact guidelines that have been arrived at and see what they say. I'd think that as a general principle, anyone can upload anything to that site but I can imagine exceptions. The big rule is that everyone should be reasonable. If for example you wanted to cite the fact that Ronald Reagan said X, and then you have a video up on UTUBE which is clearly a report from the CBS nightly news of Ronald Reagan saying X, well that'd seem reasonable, unless there were some reason to suspect that it had been faked. There is also a general principle that we should go for the most primary sourse possible, so there's that, too. Also, how can we contextualize it without a the corresponding Post story? We don't know otherwise who took this where and when and how and who the people are. What is the blog that is hosting it? U219 asked if we could use a person's personal blog and I said well it's not up to me but I supposed I wouldn't revert it depends. Everyone should just be reasonable. I what happens if you type WP:BLOG and click it? Chrisrus (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to cite to youtube when you have tons of mainstream press organizations concluding that this guy is a total fraud. It couldn't be any clearer. Every mainstream news article about this guy and his horrible tactics should be cited.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well let's try to be objective here Milowent, regardless of our personal feelings about Raniere. To be honest, the whole YouTube video seems a bit strange in and of itself. We do not know who is in the video, where it is being filmed, in what context this meeting is taking place, and who was filming the video at that time. We also have Raniere making a lot of claims that cannot be substantiated either. With that said, I am also concerned about the possibility of citing from blogs since that is an open violation of WP: SPS U21980 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus, once again you seem to misunderstand my intentions here. Can you please cite an area in which I stated that I respect Raniere? All I ask is that we get past accusations at this point because it is frankly a bit old already. In response to your comment Fairsfair7, in assuming that you are referring to me as the person who has a problem with the blog, I would like to respond by stating that citing from that blog is a violation of WP:RS regardless of how I feel about it personally. U21980 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you went ahead and added that in anyways, I thought the "cult" classification was only meant for NXIVM but I see the word "programs" mentioned in the lead. Which additional programs are you referring to?U21980 (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides, Chrisrus and I seem to agree that adding much to the lead at this point in regards to that type of information is actually irrelevant. Why not discuss the issue before posting a contentious edit like that? U21980 (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

On top of that, the reference for the "numerous" reports is the Metroland article which is the subject of contention on this discussion board. U21980 (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the edit solely for the reasons that it is cited by the Metroland article which has no consensus among the users here, it is irrelevant to the lead since it describes Raniere's programs, not Raniere himself (this claim is mentioned towards the end of the page and is adequately addressed on the NXIVM page), we should only add that line in if we decide to add in the rest of the details that were also removed while Chrisrus was modifying the page. I am open to discuss this issue with you Milowent. I look forward to your response! U21980 (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The only reason this guy seems notable enough for wikipedia is all these articles calling him the leader of a cult. Otherwise, he's just a business person, we don't have articles on every child prodigy who goes into business later in life. It could not be clearer to me that the multiple multiple multiple news sources saying his organization is a cult must have prominent mention in this article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'm not interested in conducting an edit war with you, but let's be clear, the particular edit you are tossing in seems to violate NPOV considering the fact that nothing else is tossed in the lead along with it. Along with the "numerous" media sources, Dr. Hochman, who studied NXIVM on orders by Ross has admitted that the following: My report was based almost exclusively on information Mr. Ross provided. 10. I never intended the Report to represent a scientific or objective study of the ESP organization or its programs. I did not attempt to conduct the sort of objective study, investigation or analysis that would have been necessary if it were a true scientific study. . ."

With that said, we are talking about an organization that is claimed to be a "cult" by the media, but I haven't seen an objective scientific study that has been able to determine that this is the case. Obviously there is some room to doubt, so we also have to show the other perspective, if we decide to include that information in the lead, otherwise it is a violation of NPOV. Raniere has responded to "cult" claims and if we are to include this type of information in the lead, I would also want you (or Chrisrus, Tomohawkmama, or myself) to post his response, Dr. Hochman's quotation, and information about NXIVM's goals to balance that out. How does that sound? U21980 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a repetitive (since it is mentioned later in the article) but more balanced view of NXIVM. Please feel free to delete all of it from the lead if you wish, I have no objections to that, but we have to try and be balanced if we are to post the "cult" accusation. Please let me know what you think! U21980 (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hochman's description of what he got and how and what he did with it is exactly what everyone else says happened and adds nothing to the story. Yes, he didn't know that Ross got it from an ex-Espian. Ross just filled out the forms or and paid the fees or whatever else he had to do to get him to look at the document and give his opinion of it, and so he did and that's the extent of his involvement in it. No, no one has ever done a full scientific study of NXIVM, they won't allow that and no one ever implied that Hochman had or even that he was supposed to. All he did was get paid to write up his opinion of the methods based on that one document and that's all and that's plenty. The ex-members say it's a cult, family members and locals familiar with it say it's a cult, and when experts were given no more evidence than the procedure manual and asked to comment they both said "based on this, it's very cult-like and brainwashy" and that's all. Then when asked to testify in court he stood by what he said but reinterated that he hadn't done a thourough study and didn't know that the documents were gotten the way they were. Fine, Hochman, we all know that, it makes no difference. Hochman didn't retract anything he said about how they operate and what it seemed in his professioal opinion to be. This statement of Hochman's just doesn't add anything, we know he was just handed the "trainers manual" or whatever you call it and gave his professional opinion based on that alone without even knowing what NXIVM was or anything other than that one document, no one ever said anything different about how that went down, so end of Hochman's part in the story without this ex-post facto reiteration of what exactly he didn't do or didn't know. He wasn't supposed to know already about NXIVM, that would could have made him biased if he had. I'm glad he didn't know it came from a whisle blower who revealed it against a non-disclosure agreement, that might have biased him. He was totally objective that way because everyone can rest assured that he based his opinion on that one document alone and nothing else at all. So this statement he made after the fact just convinces more effectively that he was objective when he made it. Chrisrus (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well Chrisrus, we are definitely in disagreement here, since Hochman himself said that he was not being objective in his study of the organization: "I never intended the Report to represent a scientific or objective study of the ESP organization or its programs. I did not attempt to conduct the sort of objective study, investigation or analysis that would have been necessary if it were a true scientific study There was no attempt made to conduct an objective study, and we can state that he was being objective here? Hochman's opinion is vital to the story of the entire NXIVM v. Ross incident, since it helps us have a window into possible problems with these reports. U21980 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well he was being subjective in that he was just giving his opinion. That's all that he was supposed to do and all anyone ever said he did. No one ever implied that he even tried to conduct the particular sort of objective study, investigation or analysis which would have been needed to say that Hochman had done a true scientific study of the group. Who ever said that Hochman had done a true scientific study of the group? Everyone who knows anything about NXIVM knows that no one has ever done a full scientific study of the group. They would never allow it unless a court orders it or something. If you want to add a clause or something stating that "although no one has ever done a full scientific study of the group(here you use this citation), a training manual was examined by two experts on such matters and their opinions were (insert fair summary of the two reports here). There is no way Hochman wasn't being objective in the sense that he was biased against NXIVM to begin with, because he'd never even heard of them or him and was totally unaware that they even existed so how is it possible that he wasn't objective? All he had was this one document and he studied it carefully and gave his opinion based on that alone and that was exactly what he was supposed to do and all anyone wanted him to do. No one ever said that he had done a full scientific study of the group. He just did what he was supposed to do, including stating that he had not done a full study and just based his conclusion on this one manual or whatever you want to call that manual and based on his years of education and experience and study and such, he noticed some things that concerned him and that's all but that's plenty. You could use this citation the next time (don't hold your breath) that someone falsely claims that Hochman is an expert on anything more than this type of thing in general or on anything more than this one document, or that he'd done some sort of thourough study of the group, had known anything about NXIVM before that or even what it was, or is some kind of expert on the subject of NXIVM per se, and or some such. As long as we simply state that Hochman was handed this document and paid as a professional to study it and give his professional opinion about it in a formal report, and we don't say anything more, there is no real need for this citation you provide. If you really want to, however, you could use it to cite a clause stating "although no formal study has been made by experts (cite)...(two experts did study the manuals and this is what how they reacted in their professional capasity" or some such). Chrisrus (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you when you state that "there is no real need for this citation", obviously there is more than meets the eye when it comes to what happened with this study. I am being very wary about trying to mislead other readers when they come on here and read about the reports and assume that Hochman's report was an objective study, it obviously wasn't and what better evidence to prove it than his statement? U21980 (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

He didn't say he hadn't been objective, he said that he hadn't done all the objective research and stuff that would have been necessary to constitute a full scientific study. That doesn't contradict the story that he'd gotten these documents, studied them, wrote his opinion and that's all. It would contradict any statement that someone might theoretically make that Hochman had done a full scientific study. He didn't do a full scientific study of the group, that's what he's saying and that's what I'm saying and that's what the article shouldn't say. The article should just say that he got this one document and wrote his opinion based on that and that alone and that other than that one document he didn't at the time know anything at all about NXIVM at the moment the papers landed in his hands. And that's good because it means that there was no way he could have been prejudiced because you have to make a conclusion before careful study to be predudiced, by definition and so he couldn't have had an opinion before the fact if he hadn't heard about it. All he's saying there is that he didn't do the kind of things that would have made it a full scientific study, no surprise, that's not what he was supposed to do. You can add that he said he hadn't done a full scientific study, but only based his conclusions on that one document alone and his education and experience and so on, which you can describe.

My contention here is that we should at least make it explicitly known that this was not a full scientific study, but either way I think we see eye to eye on a few points here and hope that we can continue to discuss this issue in the future. Thanks for your willingness to discuss the issue! U21980 (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and you're welcome. Please go and track down those two documents and read them and come back here and tell us all about it. We want to know what Hochman and the other guy said about the training manuals. What are the specific concerns they had, if any. Did they use the word "cult", and if so, how? Chrisrus (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Patents

Hi everyone, I have been looking into the possibility of listing Raniere's patents on this page since even "Rational Inquiry" can be considered a patent (at least from my google search of it). I will put up the text of the proposed edit to the page later for review. U21980 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that someone has patents usually isn't worth noting unless its been covered in news sources, because not every patent is notable, just like not every book that is written is notable. The abomination that was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Howard_Press_(3rd_nomination) started when the article subject's son thought he could pen a good article about his dad's inventions. It became a repository for criminal activity he had committed which was the actual subject of news reports. Eventually son begged the article to be deleted lest his mom have a heart attack. This is not a joke.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Milowent, thanks for the comment and the link! I had just come across some stuff and thought it may be an interesting section to add. So I appreciate your input about this. I'll keep digging through the results that pop up about the patents and see if there is anything of relevance there. Thanks again! U21980 (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Bronfman Sr.

He seems like a strange character to me in his classification of NXIVM:

From the Vanity Fair article:

In the early part of 2003 Edgar Bronfman took his first intensive. A former nxivm devotee recalls that it was because “he saw amazing changes” in his daughters. But others believe it may have also been because Raniere had his sights set on the billionaire almost from the day that Sara showed up for her first workshop. During their initial sessions, both sisters gave one trainer the impression that they had a “terrible” relationship with their father. “I remember them saying that he was the kind of man that could always buy anything—anything or anyone,” says this person. “And they didn’t want that control anymore.” But at the time, another person says, all that people knew was Raniere had urged them to reach out to their father. And Bronfman, apparently eager to improve his relationship with his youngest children, signed up for one of the five-day “V.I.P.” courses, which were designed to pull in the rich and famous. The intimate, $10,000 white-glove workshops were then taught by nxivm’s president, Nancy Salzman, who, along with Edgar Bronfman Sr., Sara, Clare, Raniere, and other nxivm representatives, would not comment for this story.

“If everyone were to go through this training, the world would be a much better and safer place to live,” Bronfman purportedly wrote in a testimonial to nxivm shortly after he completed the course. During the workshops, he said, “we learned to look deep into our psyches, to get rid of hang-ups that had plagued us for years.” He was so impressed by nxivm’s program that he began private therapy sessions with Nancy Salzman. For months, according to Barbara Bouchey, a former nxivm board member, he would send his helicopter to pick Salzman up in New York and fly her to his estate in Virginia."

I cite the material above to show that his classification of NXIVM does not come from anything discussed in classes or coursework, or anything about Salzman or Raniere himself. This is important to note. U21980 (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The quote "if everyone....plagued us for years" is pretty typical of the reaction of initial participants to cults, isn't it? I mean, you don't have to know much about cults to know that an initial wildly superlative responces, wouldn't those be a necessary condition for a cult to form in the first place? A dangerous cult wouldn't be a dangerous cult - would it? - if the initial contact weren't thus. How could such a cult form elsehow? (by the way, everyone try using the word "elsehow" into your daily usage.) Anyway, think about cult you've ever heard of, I donno, say, The People's Temple or some such. Don't all the ex-members say that, at first, it was great, marvalous, "it seemed like the answer to all the problems in the world" or some such? I'd say, the more over-the-top superlative the initial reaction, the more wary I'd be that it might be a cult. I'm not saying that this kind of over-the-top evaluation is any kind of proof that it must be a cult on those grounds alone. Please don't misunderstand my point. For it to be a cult, you'd need not only the initial reaction but also to look at such factors as, just for example, do they bow down to the leader and call him "the great poobah" or some such, do they talk the members into drop out of normal society, leave their families, hand over all their money and possessions, and all the other things that go with the term "cult" as it understood both by experts and by the general undrestanding of the word. Do you really see this differently? Chrisrus (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Chrisrus, thanks for the reply! My entire point here was not to state that Bronfman's opinion is not valid because he didn't call NXIVM a "cult" from the beginning, but that from what I have read so far, it seems that his problem was not with any of their teachings, meeting practices, and I think that is a bit notable by itself. U21980 (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Former Customers

I have went through and done a google search on the following list of people who had taken NXIVM courses in the past: "Linda Evans; Richard Branson; the Cafritz family; actress Kristin Kreuk; Sheila Johnson, co-founder of BET; Antonia Novello, former U.S. surgeon general; Stephen Cooper of Enron, and Ana Cristina Fox, daughter of the former Mexican president." and I have not found one article or statement that they have made regarding the organization. Since NXIVM's critics like Ross seem to be loud in their criticism here, and there are no statements to the contrary from these people, where could we list these customers? Is their silence an implicit denial of the "cult" label? I look forward to hearing a response to this inquiry! Thanks!U21980 (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How do we know these people took courses? Obviously silence doesn't mean they have an opinion on the organization or the courses, but if its public record that notable people have taken courses, that may merit mention.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey buddy, I hope that this post finds you well. Well this information is cited at the NXIVM Wiki page. The reason that I made the assumption that I did in the paragraph above is that I am going along with the logic that: "A lot of times, satisfied customers never leave any feedback. Unsatisfied customers are much more likely to leave feedback, negative, of course and this creates a skewed negative image of the merchant." (I just took this from a website, but I figured Bronstein already stated this better than I could).

I think statements from any of these people would be admissable, especially if they're in some WP:RS. I also think that the fact that a notable person is a member is notable, even if they've never commented on it. Chrisrus (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Former NXIVM Members

I checked out the link associated with the NXIVM Nine and was not able to find the word "cult" anywhere in the letter. Is there another resource that claims that they have called the organization by that label? If not, then shouldn't they be removed or moved to another section? U21980 (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I'll move them to a separate section until find out everything notable that WP:RSs say about the "NXIVM Nine". If you have access to the RS story of the Nine, please tell us all about it. Chrisrus (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I had actually learned about the NXIVM Nine through an article on the TimesUnion I think, but I don't remember the title of it. There was a brief mention of it on the Vanity Fair article I think. U21980 (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

New Section on List Above

Hi Everyone, I feel that the categorization of the list above may be unfair to NXIVM: "Positive Reviews and Denials of "cult" description" should be changed to "Positive reviews, denials, and non-mentions of 'cult' label" or something to that effect. It is unexpected that media outlets would go out of there way to try to deny the "cult" label, rather they would decide either to: 1. not mention it 2. call it by some other name (a self-help organization for example) or 3. Refer to the fact that it is controversial, but not call it a "cult" themselves. So wouldn't modifying this section to include articles like this be the more balanced thing to do? U21980 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. At this point, neither the article nor this page, nor me, actually, knows much about the nine. Let's have the story cited and complete in the article. It seems very notable. And by the way, doesn't anyone support merging this article with NXIVM? Chrisrus (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole ordeal with the NXIVM Nine is quite an interesting story to say the least, does it deserve its own section though? I am not so convinced here. It seems to fit in well in its current section on the NXIVM page. With that said, I want to take the opportunity to reiterate that NXIVM and Raniere should be kept as two distinct organizations as NXIVM is bigger than Raniere himself (he is the Founder, but Salzman is the President)> U21980 (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

NXIVM 9 letter

So how did you "U21980" come to read the NXIVM 9 so called "extortion letter". That letter has never been made public, so how do you know the word cult wasn’t used. Do you have access to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diogenes of rexford (talk • contribs) 01:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your interest in improving this article. I think maybe it might have been me from whom she got it, as I posted it above on this page, scroll up you'll see. And you must have missed it, it was published by the TU. Here it is again: | http://web.timesunion.com/pdf/NXIVM9AllegedExtortionLetter.pdf

It may be a moot point to respond to this thread, but I just saw the link above and clicked to it. I never saw the letter prior to that. U21980 (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What is NXIVM?

Project area, feel free to help

Described as a "cult" or "cult-like organization"

Press

New York Magazine | http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/10/all_about_nxivm_the_cultlike_o.htmlThis article is from New York Magazine. It's entitled "All About NXIVM, the Cultlike Organization With Ties to Albany".
New York Observer http://www.observer.com/2010/daily-transom/poor-little-rich-girls In this August, 2010 New York Observer article, Maureen Tkacik, observes how the Bronfman heiresses (to the Seagram fortune) continue to be influenced by Keith Raniere and NXIVM into spending their fortune on lawsuits, private investigators with disreputable backgrounds, and subversive methods attempting to silence or discredit K.R./NXIVM critics including Rick Ross (consultant). It also says that NXIVM's sponsorship of the Dalai Lama's visit to Albany, NY to publically meet KR was Sara Bronfman's doing. She used her fortune and influence and years of work to make it happen, flying to Tibet and donating a large amount of money to organizations the Lama supports. Tkack describes this as an apparent effort lend credibility to the "cult".
Forbes Magazine
1. | http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/088.html The Forbes article "Cult of Personality" includes indirect quotations from KR denying that it's a cult.
2. | http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0724/044a.html *(no explicit mention of NXIVM as cult, see discussion post below)*This July 25, 2005 follow-up article to The Bronfmans and the Cult reports that sources including a former NXIVM consultant say that the sisters have lost so much money with KR and NXIVM that they have had to borrow money from Citigroup against their future trust fund allowances. It also reports that Sara bought an apartment in the Trump Tower for Salzman and a jet for NXVM, on which Sara and Nancy flew with a NXIVM new member recruitment team to Ireland. Also, Clare has paid NXIVM two million dollars in exchange for 24/7 access to Nancy. The reporter, whose name is “Phyllis Berman“, says she didn’t get replies from repeated requests for comment from KR, NS, or NXM or Bronfman reps.
3. | http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/03/29/the-bronfmans-and-the-cult/ This article from Forbes Magazine called "the Bronfmans and the Cult" by Nathan Vardi is about how the Bronfman sisters are involved in a creepy cult that takes all their money.
Metroland |http://metroland.net/back_issues/vol29_no32/features.html NXIVM sued Metroland for publishing this article on the grounds that it portrayed them as a cult.
Village Voice | http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-10-16/news/secret-agent-schmuck/full In the Village Voice article, Secret Agent Schmuck" the author, in the course of talking about something else, defines the organzation thusly: "...the NXIVM Corporation, an Albany-based company that offers seminars in achieving personal and business goals, and whose devotees include heirs to some of the richest fortunes in America and Mexico. In the last few years, former members of NXIVM have come forward to claim that the company is in fact a predatory personal-growth cult that subjects its members to intensive brainwashing and requires them to swear their lives to its leader"
The Times Union | http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=home&search=1&firstRequest=1&query=keith+raniere&x=23&y=10&searchindex=property
Daily Gazette | http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2009/mar/29/0329_weaver/ The Daily Gazzette Archives returns many hits for "NXIVM" and "Keith Reniere". This one is titled "Dalai Lama's visit to Albany sponsored by cult-like group", and was in the Sunday Gazette on March 29, 2009
Macleans http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/09/how-to-lose-100-million/
Vanity Fair | http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/11/bronfman-201011?currentPage=1] This article is called The Heiresses and the Cult.
The Buffalo News http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article377475.ece Local developer tangled in legal battle : Parlato accused of fraud in dispute over fee in Los Angeles real estate negotiations By Phil Fairbanks, News Staff Reporter, Published: March 27, 2011, 8:07 AM This news report says that many people say that it's a cult who loses money wrecklessly. It names some of the people who say it's a cult.

Ex-members

Joseph O'Hara [http://albarchive.merlinone.net/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=6305760]
Barbara Bouchey

Paid Experts

Dr. John Hochman, M.D.
Dr. Paul Martin, Ph.D.
Rick Ross (consultant)

Family of Members

Edgar Bronfman, Sr. (Cite NYObserver, above)

Positive Reviews, Denials/No-mention of "cult" description

KR himself
Former members
Present members
1. The Bronfmans
2. Sarah Edmondson http://sarahedmondson.wordpress.com/ Notable Canadian Actress
3. Ivy Nevares In Spanish Seems to be one of the Mexican members that some articles spoke of. Loves KR and NXM and seems to be trying to start some kind of movement in Mexico. Check it out!
The organization itself http://www.nxivm.com/
1. Lawyers for NXIVM
  1. http://albarchive.merlinone.net/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=6305760
Satisfied Customers
1. That British Billionaire who owns Virgin Airlines and such
2. Bill and Hilary Clinton family friend (according to NY Mag article)
Others
Press

Times Union|http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/NXIVM-flexes-legal-muscle-1410120.php (no mention of NXIVM as a "cult" just as a "unusual self-improvement business")

Discussion of positive review section

This list basically means we have no reliable sources (under wikipedia policies) to say its not a cult.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this meant to state that Ross, and the NXIVM Nine are reliable sources? In terms of being fair, if we are going to consider Rick Ross a reliable source, than so is Raniere, Bronfman, and others who have actually taken courses. U21980 (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, let's not forget that unlike Raniere and the Bronfmans, Ross has a criminal background. So we have to consider what "reliable" actually means in context here. If Raniere, the Bronfmans', or the people who had taken the courses are not considered to be valid or "reliable", how much more that of Bouchey along with the rest of the NXIVM Nine who are accused of extorting money from the organization? My point is, at what point are the sources I have highlighted above reliable? Please let me know if I have misunderstood the meaning behind your post above. I look forward to hearing your response! U21980 (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I hope that this post finds you well. I am going to go ahead and modify the above category to be a bit more fair towards NXIVM in lieu of no responses to my previous post about possibly revising the category. Let me know if this is an issue! U21980 (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of this subproject

Chrisrus (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, we should list any mainstream news article that has done a thorough examination and concluded it is not a cult.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. But this was in response to your most recent edit. "former members" isn't enough. We should say how many and in the body who they are and what they said. Then we should list everyone else. So please help me with the list and then we'll complete your last edit, or at least make it more complete. Then yes we should also say who says no it's not and what you said or whatever else. Then let the reader decide or read on for more before deciding. Chrisrus (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My point was there are no such articles.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Please help with the list. Then your clause can be expanded. We want to say something like "...a "cult" or "cult-like organization" by Forbes {cite}, etc." Don't you agree? Chrisrus (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps its just me, but doesn't it seem like the page will just be bogged down if we expand upon supporters and critics of the organization? I can see listing a few of them, but to go ahead and list everyone who supports or is against the organization may be a bit unnecessary for this type of page. Just my opinion though. U21980 (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. I suggest we see what we've got when it's done here and then decide what to do with this information. I quess I'll procede, feel free to help. Chrisrus (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Times-Union's most recent article on NXIVM describes it not as a "cult" but as an "unusual self-improvement business" U21980 (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Far from fair, the Times-Union has been clear that Raniere is a two-bit charlatan.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am citing the exact words of a Times-Union article. My question is, at what point do we discount this description of NXIVM (With this quote being the most recent description of the organization - which does not list it as a "cult") in place of that of another Times-Union article? Being fair, I haven't seen anyone describe Raniere as a "two-bit charlatan" though. U21980 (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not in so many words, no. But that's pretty much how it consistantly portrays him to my reading, minus the "two-bit." More like two-billion bit, how many "bits" equals two-hundred million dollars? Anyway, I get it delivered and read the articles and I'd say based on that that, on balance, "charlatan" is what I've gotten out of it. Like the Gazette, the Times-Union has done tons of articles about this topic, all pretty clearly negative, although you could also use the TU to cite people who've said nice things about it. Someone needs to go through them all, but all of mine (except this week's) have gone out with the recycling. I researched this before and reported back here, maybe in the archives or above. But like the Gazette, someone's got to either "take one for the team" and pay to see those articles and summerize them here, or go down to the library, of somesuch. I'll try again and let you know. Chrisrus (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Chrisrus, thanks for your response! According to the description of the organization in the latest article, is it possible that the Times-Union is pulling away from the perjorative "cult" label? This is my point, the latest article seems to avoid calling it a "cult", so do we cite the Times-Union as calling it a "cult" in the past with the recognition that as of the latest article it seems to avoid doing so? U21980 (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The TU is always very professional about how they phrase things. They wouldn't call someone (or something) by a negative word without being very careful to say "alleged" or somesuch. To the extent that they do, in fact, call it that, therefore, it's very significant. You wouldn't expect the TU or another traditional professional newspaper like the Gazzette to say "cult", as it's not a well defined technical term. That's why it's so powerful when they call it "cultlike". Chrisrus (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you mean here, and I appreciate the discourse. I think we should acknowledge that it seems like it is doing both (avoiding the label currently, while calling it a "cult" in the past). What do you think about that? U21980 (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Vanity Fair Summary

Please keep the discussion out of the workspace. Chrisrus (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In a November, 2010 five-page VANITY FAIR article, NXIVM, is described as a "cult" founded by Keith Raniere and based on his theories. It reports that Raniere has lost nearly $200 million funded by 2 wealthy sisters who are among his followers and rank highly in the organization. It alleges that Raniere spent the funds in commodities trading and real estate ventures and notes that the losses occurred during bull markets, prior to the 2008 economic collapse or decline in either market. The article examines the "cult"'s role in the heiresses' family dynamics, and suggests NXIVM and Raniere are using them to take advantage of the young women and rob them of their inheritance.

These allegations seem damning in a sense, but if true (and this is a questionable accusation) this begs the question: aren't the Bronfman sisters entitled to spend their money however they like? From what I have read so far of this article, it doesn't indicate that they are being deceived or are being coerced, but are supporting NXIVM through their own volition. At a point in the article, the following quote appears: "Sara and Clare Bronfman appear to be claiming that they are not responsible for what many would consider to be the squandering of their fortune. They were victims—of an unscrupulous financial manager, among the many other people who took advantage of them." So there is obviously a second side to this story. U21980 (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So how would you like to edit the summary? Chrisrus (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I think that the summary should indicate that while these allegations are being made, the Bronfman's have a different perspective and then we can begin to lay that out. I just want all views about this controversy to be represented. U21980 (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you might want to try writing your own fair, honest, non-POV summary of the Vanity Fair article. Feel free to write something along the lines of "This article says that _____. " Just the facts, Ma'am. What does the Vanity Fair Article say? Feel free to edit the existing summary or write your own summary or combine them both. Chrisrus (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

New York Observer article discussion

The New York Observer never calls NXIVM a "cult" or states that it is "cult-like", so why is it included in the list above? If anything, it should be listed as an article that does not label NXIVM as a "cult". U21980 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. To me, it is called a cult or cultlike several times in the article. Chrisrus (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here, for example "On the evening of my visit to Saratoga Springs, Mr. Tighe called to inform me that a NXIVM member with whom I had met a few hours earlier had been “spotted” talking to me by a few apparent members of the cult." Chrisrus (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of the Daily Gazette articles

Also the Daily Gazette article is an op-ed that seems to require possibly paid subscriptions to access. Has anyone had the chance to read the entire article? There had been concerns raised about citing from this source before, but these issues had never been resolved. With that said, I have to ask again, is this op-ed a work of "factual journalism" or just a random New Yorker's opinion? If it is more of the latter, is it valid under the strict standards of WP:RS or would it be in violation of WP:BLP? These are questions that are important to resolve. U21980 (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it's a Letter from the Editor or some such, it's the official opinion of the paper, so we can truely say that the paper called it that. If it's from a report, it might be the reporter's conclusion or that of someone being interviewed in the paper. If it's a letter TO the editor, then it's the conclusion of the writer, who might be an expert on the subject or, as you say "some random New Yorker".

As to access to the article, yes, I read it at the time and I think others here did, too. But since then, it's aged off and into the archives. And yes, if you want to look at any of their old stuff from the archives, it costs money. The last time I checked (I wrote you all a short report about it) there were a whole bunch of hits of "NXIVM" and "Keith Raniere" there, many, many more than just this one. They've been following it for years. Getting access to all that material is very important for this article, I think. What we need is for someone to take a hit for the team and pay the $20.00 or whatever it is to get to all those articles and read them and summarize them here. I'm hoping that's not going to have to be me, so I'll wait a bit and see who's willing to go for it. The alternative might be just to go down to a library that has a collection of old Gazettes and bring your lap top or a notebook and a pencil and make like you're back in high school and research all that for us, and, again, post it here. Or actually, you might be some strange catlady hoarder who saves all their old newspapers and can dig around in the basement and get that stuff. Chrisrus (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well we have to figure out who the author is, if he is some random New Yorker, then he wouldn't be listed as a news source, but just that, a "random citizen". U21980 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Forbes Article Comments

If you look at the following article that is listed above: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0724/044a.html It is interesting to note that it actually calls NXIVM a "an executive training firm", in the text of the article, it does not list it as a "cult" itself. The title itself was actually part of a follow-through investigation of the 2003 article, so it had to bear the same name, but the text of the follow-through did not explicitly state that NXIVM was a "cult". Is there any objection to its removal from the list above? U21980 (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So basically what I am saying is, the 2003 original article can be included in the list which claims that NXIVM is a "cult" but the 2006 follow-through should not. U21980 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the title of the 2006 follow-up? Chrisrus (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The title of the article is Follow-Up: The Bronfmans and the Cult (referring to the title of the 2003 article). My point is, if the 2003 article had been named The Bronfmans and NXIVM, then the title for this article would have reflected that instead. So the 2006 article by that standard, does not actually refer to NXIVM as being a "cult" itself. U21980 (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

An article titled "The Bronfmans and the Cult" doesn't refer to NXIVM as a cult? That's just wrong.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A follow-up article that simply restates the title of the 2003 article but does not label NXIVM as a cult does not actually count. Now the 2003 article, that is a different story of course. U21980 (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)