Talk:NXIVM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Companies  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Salzman's Birthday[edit]

Hi everyone, I wanted to notify you that I deleted the portion about Salzman's birthday that was listed under the VWeek section since it is in no way related to VWeek and was uncited. If there are any problems with this deletion, I would like to discuss them. Remember, consensus is key! — Preceding unsigned comment added by U21980 (talkcontribs) 17:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Dispute/Intervention[edit]

I see that the discussion on this article is only heating up over time instead of coming to any form of a consensus. From what I can read from the comments posted on this talk page, edits made on the article itself along with user talk pages, there is a lot of bias, pov shoving, and personal attacks. All of which are absolutely unacceptible. What I am requesting of all of the editors which have been involved in this dispute, including Link, James, Keyser, and U2, is to take a one week minimum break from editing this artile, talk page or any others directly relating to, or mainspace articles linking to this page in any way. Simply walk away for the next week, don't even reply here, engage with other editors regarding these pages on user talkpages, or even on mine, for a week. My hope is that will result in cooler heads and we can readdress this article. In the mean time, I will hope to gather the information presented thus far from all sides, and attempt to summarize them so we can begin addressing actual concerns and move towards a better article overall. I thank you for your cooperation in working to resolve these matters. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to do so, User:Tiggerjay. Thanks for your guidance. See you in a week plus. --JamesChambers666 (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I will agree but I most comment that james only agreed after he edited out that Antonia Novello,was a self admitted felon.I surpose for the sake of neutrality James would describe Jeffrey Dahmer as having an unusual eating disorder.Keyser Sözetigho (talk)

I will agree under protest as it was in bad faith for james to heavily edit the article to paint NXIVM in the most favorable light and then agree to and support a no editing agreement. This is typical NXIVM behavior.Link1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not sure why any of you are making these claims about James since I don't see that reflected in the edit history. I was the last one to edit the page, and that was around the same time I posted what I did above. James hasn't made any edits to the article after his posted consent above. hmm Tiggerjay (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In light of the recent actions taken by admin in regards to a few users, I was wondering if the week ban should still be encouraged. I know that the remaining users on this page seem to be dedicated towards working together on the page. Please let me know what you think TiggerJay!U21980 (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Link1914 is Keyser[edit]

The following message was recently posted on by an admin: Comment: Just as a heads-up to all involved in this discussion, it was confirmed that Link1914 == Keyser Sözetigho. I've blocked Link as a sockpuppet but have left Keyser Sözetigho alone as he is involved in this discussion. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask me. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)U21980 (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

MXIVM Watch[edit]

So as you know being employees of NXIVM, NXIVM critics only post from public portals. So link and Soze shared a portal that doesn’t stop the campaign for fairness and objectivity. Till next time the legion is strong NXIVMwatch (talk)

The legion is strong?...okay. Well I look forward to working with you to try and make decent edits on this page. I would like a citation for the information you have already posted on here that indicate the following: "So as you know being employees of NXIVM, NXIVM critics only post from public portals." As far I can tell, I haven't seen any NXIVM employees roaming about, but I have seen plenty NXIVM critics (two - three if you count Link and Keyser as one person just one). So if these are baseless accusations that are being spread, I would appreciate it if we do not post them in the first place. With that being said, I and most everyone else here does not consider Raniere a saint, but I am interested in trying to present a picture of the man that does not portray every single detail of his life as being negative. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. U21980 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Btw, I did notice the edit you put on the NXIVM page, the same edits that Link/Keyser tried to add in earlier. Why add such a contested edit to the page without at least trying to talk about it? U21980 (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The comments made above were not made with the intention of attacking you, I am just curious as to your response, that's all. Welcome to the page, hopefully we can work together to strengthen this page in a neutral manner.U21980 (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Conduct on This Talk Page[edit]

Hi everyone, I would like to address an issue that Tiggerjay has addressed above and that is the conduct of this page. Keyser/Link as well as myself have not been nearly as civil as we could have been in discussing the various issues we had with each other and with the content of the page. I realize that sometimes these conflicts heat up over time and I just wanted to apologize for what we have been seeing on this page. Hopefully we can let go of our personal feelings on this matter and just work together, build consensus, and make edits on the page that will help to improve its quality for other readers. Thanks for reading this message. U21980 (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversy - NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute[edit]

After having come across some additional information about the case from the USDC in New Jersey, I believe that we should expand the information listed under this case. A specific piece of information that seemed worthy of addition is listed by Dr. Hochman in his affadavit in the case. You can find the comments on page 4: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/2:2006cv01051/187115/288:

The Hochman Affidavit indicates that Dr. Hochman was unaware that the materials provided by Mr. Ross contained any trade secret information or that such materials had been procured in violation of any sort of confidentiality obligation. Dr. Hochman now asserts the following:

5. I now understand that the Protected Materials given to Mr. Ross by Ms. Franco were confidential and proprietary in nature to ESP . . .

6. Mr. Ross asked me to use the Protected ESP Materials to prepare a written report . . .Based upon the fact that Mr. Ross told me he was going to use the report for the singular purpose of persuading the Student that he was under the undue influence of the ESP organization I concluded that Mr. Ross believed that ESP was a harmful organization (the “Hochman Assumption”).

8. In preparing my Report, I relied almost entirely on the Protected Materials provided to me by Mr. Ross. I also utilized some materials then available from the ESP website. My knowledge of these items informed my Report. Mr. Ross never used the name “NXVIM” in his conversations with me and nowhere within the Protected materials or the ESP website was NXIVM mentioned. . .

9. The Hochman Assumption no doubt played a role in causing me to write the Report in a manner to support a finding that ESP was harmful and to incorporate the negative views and strong bias I concluded that Mr. Ross personally held regarding ESP. . .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. . . Aff. ¶¶ 5, 6, 8, 9,10.

Dr. Hochman also indicates that he executed and delivered a Cease and Desist letter to Mr. Ross in or on September, 2006 requesting that the report and any references to the report be removed from the website.

This perspective seems to be missing from the information already listed. Let me know what you think about its possible inclusion!U21980 (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Where is his report? And where is the other one? Let's tell the reader all about this topic, especially at the article NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute. This is a very important case, at least in the opinion of the Supreme Corp. and in that of certain legal scholors. Chrisrus (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I have not seen the two reports specifically, but since the case is still pending in the Courts, with at least one author arguing against the publication of his report, I wonder how much and to what degree such reports should be posted. U21980 (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
If you have sources that assert that this case was not, in fact, "decided April 20, 2004" as the article NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute states, please go to that article and edit it with a citation and/or commentary on it's discussion page. Also, if there is anything else incorrect about that article that you know about, please let it know. As far as I can see, the court took this statement into account and decided as it did anyway: the media have a right to use the reports made by the experts based solely on these materials to explain to our readers what experts think about the methods used by NXIVM. Chrisrus (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not one to second guess the Court of course, but I think that if these reports were obtained in a manner that was considered to be in "bad faith" then at least we have to be balanced in reporting the controversies surrounding this report, which would include at least citing Hochman's affidavit. U21980 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"...controversial self-help hypnosis group NXIVM (pronounced Nex-ee-um), which has a decidedly cultish appeal", National Post.[edit]

| http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Your+presence+requested+celebrate+divorce/4793354/story.html The National Post calls it a "controversial self-help hypnosis group NXIVM (pronounced Nex-ee-um), which has a decidedly cultish appeal". Chrisrus (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation cleanup[edit]

Hi everyone, I went through the page and tried merging citations together using the "refname" command. If I missed anything, please feel free to correct it! U21980 (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be reworded for comprehension[edit]

Everytime I revisit this article it makes less sense. It's been filled with so many buzzwords and specific terms taken straight from NXIVM's website that it is approching nonsense in some areas. I feel it really needs to be reworded and simplified, so it reads less like a quote directly from their PR and more like an encyclopedia article. Bookbrad (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Bookbrad. Please do feel free to help. We have many unused WP:RSs at the article Keith Raniere's discussion page that will be very useful to you. For some reason we started collecting them there. I'd like to merge the two articles and redirect NXIVM to a sub-section of that article. Most of the action is happening there. They both seem to be new articles, started by a fan and since then acted on and by anti-fans, so at this stage it's inevitably going to go through some thrashing. By far most of the unused WP:RSs you'll find there are quite negative, so there's only one way these articles are going to end up in terms of that effect on the reader if by the time we use them all because very little available to us isn't negative. Happy editing and thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we can work together to refine this page (I haven't seen a page that has approached perfection yet). I still do not see the idea behind merging Raniere with NXIVM since they are completely distinct pages that really have little to do with each other. NXIVM seems to be bigger than just Raniere. U21980 (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

While reliable sources are important, that's not really what's MOST lacking in this article. Too many direct quotes using phraseology particular to NXIVM/ESP leaves the article incomprehensible to me and probably others who haven't gone through their programs. It needs to be reworded using more common terms. I'll try to help in this rewording after I've read some of the reliable sources, if it makes any sense then. (But I do have a life, so it won't happen today.) I don't think the article about NXIVM should be merged with Raniere's - although they have some overlaps, they're still distinct subjects. I would like to see more clarification on Nancy Salzman's role, as well as others involved, if any such information is available. I certainly get the impression that he's not running the whole show. Bookbrad (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus-why do you want to merge the article? Would a section on Raniere's page suffice? Tomohawkmama (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Rewording of that section would help as the user who actually created the text of that section has been banned for a few months for sockpuppetry. U21980 (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources for this article and what they say: The Times-Union story page one[edit]

Let’s examine the sources being used for this article. The first one I’d like to talk about is #4, ‘’“Papers reveal NXIVM secrets: NXIVM founder Keith Raniere's private mission and fear of government unveiled by testimony”’’ by James m. Odato, published January 31, 2011. I followed the link and easily found it, thank you, and hope you will do so now and help me write a fair summary of the article so that it can be fairly depicted in the article:

This article details what the reporter calls and (I'm sure you'll agree are) "extraordinary" relevations of the inner workings of NXIVM and KR personally. A Federal court had just released to the public sworn testimony that came out during a suit between NXIVM and someone else in New Jersey back in 2009. NXIVM's lawyers had called for a high-ranking board NXIVM board member named Barbara Bouchey to be deposed, but they must have been very surprised when instead of helping their case, she swore to a series of statements that I'm sure you'll agree are something more negative than the understated word the reporter uses, "unflattering". The testimony describes KR in a way the author sumarizes as “an ethically challenged visionary” so strangely obsessed with a fear of the government that he seriously discussed finding a way to start his own country by splitting off part of Australia! She swore that he encouraged tax evasion by going "off the grid" and not filing.

This article NXIVM can be used to cite that it is "an Albany County self-improvement business" and these details, too:

  1. KR is a resident of Clifton Park.
  2. KR is the creator of NXM.
  3. NXM offers courses in Raniere’s ethical philosophy.
  4. NXM is based in Colonie, Albany County, New York State, Capital District, USA. It's a suburb of Albany.
  5. NXM had been in business “for more than ten years” there at the time it was published, which was last January.

Anyway, to get back to the main point of the article, the reporter quotes NXM lawyers who said BB was “wrong” and accused her of “allying herself” with the untrustworthy anti-NXM people but they withheld further comment.

BB swore that:

  1. KM and NXM discussed how to dig up dirt on Ross in an effort to discredit him. They discussed hiring private eyes to dig through his trash.
  2. Get this: they talked about arranging a breaking and entering into Toni Natalie’s house to get things of KR’s that she ended up with somehow after they had broken up.
  3. TN was an inner circle Espian who was his girlfriend and business partner.
  4. There was discussion of ways to sue TN into silence.
  5. They had discussed how to spread a false rumor that Kristin Snyder had been involved with drug gangs before her suicide in Alaska.
  6. KR is completely in charge of the inner circles of mostly women. He dominates everyone with his superior intelligence.
  7. KR told them to evade paying taxes by “staying off the grid” and not filing.

We could use this to cite that Kristen Snyder has not been seen since 2/03 in Alaska. KS left a suicide note talking about NXM, which she’d recently left, and that Odato had asked BB, KR and TN the other espians to comment in time for the article, but they didn’t.

That was page one, but there’s another page. The bizarre Australia stuff must be detailed on page two, I hope to get to that soon, but by all means be my guest. Chrisrus (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources usable for this article[edit]

If you can read this and are interested in contributing to this article, there are many sources that can help you collected, orgainized, and some even summarized or quoted from, on the talk page of the article Keith Raniere. Good luck and thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

pronunication?[edit]

I'd think it would be "nex-i-um", but that doesn't fit the ambiguous transcription, which I'm taking to mean "nex-eem". Correct me if I'm wrong. — kwami (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and help. I stuck little hyphens between the syllables. Does that help? Also, I was thinking about adding the fact that it's pronounced the same as the purple pill for heartburn, Nexium, for which there are many TV ads in the English-speaking world, and so many people know how to pronounce that. Another idea would be to add a second phonetic transcription, this time using normal English letters, something like maybe "Neh-Xee-Yum," or some such, but that maybe wouldn't look so encyclopedic. . Chrisrus (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Objection[edit]

I have many problems with this article. For example, look at this sentence, retrieved on August 31st, 2011, but having stood for quite a long time before today:

"NXIVM has been called a cult by columnist Jeane Macintosh from The New York Post and by billionaire philanthropist Edgar Bronfman, Sr., a former participant and the father of NXIVM's two biggest financial supporters, Sara Bronfman and Clare Bronfman."

Now, please look at the relevant sections of the talk page for Keith Raniere, where just about every WP:RS citation for NXIVM is kept on Wikipedia. Notice something? It has been depicted as such by many, many, sources that come much closer to passing the WP:RS test than the New York Post, which, as you many know, knows is a solatious tabloid. And the New York Post is not even supposed to be allowed as WP:RS, and for good reason. Please give the reader if not a complete list, than at least a fair sampling of the reliable sources and eliminate all references to the New York Post. The Post is not even listed in the references for this statement, and the statement is not even cited at all. But please don't just remove this, tell the people who and how many important sources call it a cult, a cult-like organization, or depict it as a cult to any reasonable objective reading of the English language. So, please take care of this matter as soon as possible!

Second, listing as the only individual who calls it a cult Mr. Bronfman, is also deceptive to the reader. One could come away easily thinking that, hey, this fellow has vested financial, emotional, and familial interest in his sisters not financially backing this group, so geez, I guess if that's all you got for people who think it's a cult, then I guess there's no big call for me to think of it as one as well. But go look at the stuff collected on Talk:Keith Raniere, and familiarize yourself with the content of those, even just a little, and you'll see quite quickly that quite a few people who are in a position to know what they are talking about, say that it is one. These are people that cannot be so dismissed as "supressives" who are just jealous petty little Ayn Rand characters who snipe at the growth success of others. Please do not take any of this from me, just research it yourself. You can use the collections at Talk:Keith Raniere or just go Google it or whatever yourself! Then come back here and look at that sentence again and Please

! Chrisrus (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no question underneath the tag, if you have nay question feel free to contact me on my talk page ot repost the help me tag, thanks. CapMan07008 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Cult[edit]

Should the introduction discuss the "cult" controversy or should it be basic information about the organization itself? i.e. location, mission, etc. Wile e coyote98 (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Coyote, and thank you for your interest in improving this article. The first thing we need for you or someone to do if you have not already is to familiarize yourself with the collection of WP:RS sources that we have for this article to be based on. They are collected on the talk page for the article on Keith Raniere, Talk:Keith Raniere.
Second, and in more direct reply to your good question, please do let us know how you would like to change the article more specifically. For example, if you would like to change the lead, please be sure that it says basically the same thing as the body, as this is the function of a lead: to summarize the article that follows.
Have fun and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Chrisrus (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Chrisrus, Thank you for the response. I can see that you and others have taken great care in compiling that list. I'll familiarize myself with it. Best, Wile e coyote98 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I too am concerned with the Wikipedia:NPOV issues on this and Raniere's page. Should be using the work "cult" to describe the organization or simply describing the relevant facts? The policy states that "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" is the "non-negotiable" duty of all wiki editors. If a preponderance of articles uses the word "cult" then maybe we should just cite their evidence without brining in their ultimate conclusion. Scholar999 (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I also ask that you familiarize yourself, if you haven't already, with the WP:RSs at the talk page of the article Keith Raniere. I'm sorry if I implied before that Mr. Coyote should have read absolutely everything thouroughly, but I think you will find that this is the only reason there is an article about him/it. Otherwise, they are not really notable. We are supposed to tell the reader the truth about what the WP:RSs say, that is all. Thank you for your interest in this matter but if you do not do so yourself soon I'll be undoing these latest changes. Chrisrus (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for your patience and commitment to civilized collaboration. Best, Scholar999 (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
So I see you've had a chance to at least glance at the sources in the article Kieth Raniere's discussion page. Please tell us what they say. Chrisrus (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Milowent, and thank you for your interest in improving the articles Keith Raniere and NXIVM. Please remind us all here how you came to this conclusion. As I recall, you had never heard about him or it; them; before, but just stopped in your role as an overseer of disputed biographies of living people, is that not correct? As a good Wikipedian, you first went to the sources and took a look, and then came back (as I believe any reasonable person would) came away with the conviction that it's a cult. Isn't that what happened? Please tell us, as best you can recall, what happened. Chrisrus (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Cafitz? Who?[edit]

There is a Pamela Cafritz who is a member of NXIVM, very high ranking. According to the Times Union she has a purple sash, if you understand their hierarchy, but no stripes. Her title is "field trainer/sales person" on some NXIVM documents presented to the courts. she was mentioned by Toni Natalie, a woman who knew him very well because she lived with him and who left the group and contributed heavily to the expose-with-an-accent-on-the-"e" in the Metroland, in that article she's the woman who, when she first started going out with him, went around asking excitedly "is she (Toni Natalie "The One...", where "The One" refers to the one chosen to bear the child of the Vanguard. She didn't. But other than that, that's pretty much all we know about her from our collection. There is a rumor in Saratoga that she's from DC where she was a "socialite" and comes from a rich family, so maybe she's well-known enough in those circles for them to have felt it impressive to say that her family is NXIVM. Wikipedia does know about rich DC developers and philanthropists in DC by that name, but I can't connect them for sure because we have no WP:RS to confirm it that I recall, and the only article about a human named Cafritz that comes up on Wikipedia when you do an Intitle search doesn't seem to be related, so how famous can they be? I say, delete it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I finally found it. It's in the Vanity Fair story. You know the one, what's it called again? What's it all about? You've read it, right? It says that Pam Cafritz is "A longtime acolyte of Raniere’s and the daughter of the Washington socialites Bill and Buffy Cafritz." Chrisrus (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring[edit]

Dear User:Milowent and User:Chrisrus,

I have answered your questions. You both seem to insist that NXIVM is a cult, while the best sources suggest that it is not one. You use local news sources and biased, opinion sources as your background for making that claim. I don't think it should be in the article at all and certainly not in the lede.--GoCubs88 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  • What are these "best sources"? NXIVM and Raniere wouldn't even have articles (due to lack of meeting WP:GNG) if not for the coverage of their cult activities.--Milowenttalkblp-r 20:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The Forbes Magazine story goes back and forth on whether or not they are a cult as do a lot of sources.GoCubs88 (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That is total baloney. The followup article that Forbes did was called the "Bronfmans and The Cult." This organization is news all over "upstate" New York, its in all the albany papers, the rochester papers, etc. Never had any verifiable proof that its not a cult been presented. All the evidence has been that it is a cult.--Milowenttalkblp-r 21:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
We don't have to say "It's a cult" in the article. We do, however,have to say that the people in the articles say that it's a cult. If you want an article where a NXIVM person says "it's not a cult", you can find that in The Saratogian, but the accuations that it is a cult are repeated there also. Chrisrus (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The man himself says he's not a cult. Barring any admission from him that he is a cult or any definition of a cult other than a few journalists hungry for copy in upstate New York, I'm hard pressed to see why it should be included at all. The rules for BLP are very clear on this point. Just because dozens of sources may claim one thing -- a claim that is dubious because nearly all of the sources you've listed are opinion-laden -- doesn't negate from the fact that Raniere has repeatedly stated NXIVM isn't a cult.--GoCubs88 (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Our job as Wikipedians is to tell readers what sources say, not to judge them. One of these things is that KR one time said, in forbes, that it's not a cult. After that, it seems, he just refused comment. That's tough for him. It seems to me that he never talks to anyone who's not under his control, which makes your job difficult, because you've got nothing to work with apart from one denial. Check the Saratogian for a denial from NS, but it is very skimpy on details. Bromfmans, esp. Claire, has given more detailed denials, as have lawyers for the group. You should get to work on this. Chrisrus (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
As a Wikipedian, all you need is one mention. You have yet to provide a definition of a cult that's appropriate and run the risk of making this whole article useless for using it as WP:UNDUE, as well as significant BLP violations. Keep fishing. GoCubs88 (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NXIVM is...[edit]

From The New York Observer:

"NXIVM IS A potent cocktail of ideas derived from self-help, therapeutic hypnosis, Scientology and the writings of Ayn Rand-all delivered through the classic mechanisms of the pyramid scheme first employed with Consumers’ Buyline."

[1]|[http://www.observer.com/2010/daily-transom/poor-little-rich-girls/2/ Chrisrus (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

added WP: Undue template, removed non encyclopedic language in controversy section. It is important to remain neutral and post encyclopedic facts not hear say.Questionable pulse (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Questionable pulse and thank you for your interest in improving this article. If you have not done so already, please familiarize yourself with the WP:RELIABLE SOURCES that we have collected for this topic on the discussion page for the article Keith Raniere and transfer the appropriate information in those sources to this article. Chrisrus (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Talk:NXIVM/GA1}}

Undue Weight Tag[edit]

Hello Questionable pulse and thank you for your interest in improving this article. You seem to have added an "undue weight" tag to the top of the article. What changes would motivate you to remove the tag? What changes would you like to make? Chrisrus (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Undue Weight[edit]

I was referring to the articles spin, no encyclopedic article should have a slant (righteous or otherwise). Questionable pulse (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think these edits are appropriate. The fact that major contributors are children of an outspoken critic and former member is given due weight by being in the lead. QP, kindly justify that or I'll restore it.--~TPW 12:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
To clarify my position, here's what it says in WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." (emphasis mine)--~TPW 14:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That sentence about the cult accusations mischaracterizes the article that is used to cite it. It makes it seem as if the whole cult thing were just the invention of a tabloid journal and a disaproving family member. The accusations simply do not in fact stem from that "newspaper" or her father. Take a look at the collection on Talk:Keith Raniere. (Should I copy the whole collection to this page? I could organize it better for you all, too, to make it easier to familiarize yourselves with them.) Chrisrus (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Fox23 News[edit]

Local Fox News affiliate report "Kindlon calling on AG's office to investigate DA abuse of power" link worked http://www.fox23news.com/news/local/story/Kindlon-calling-on-AGs-office-to-investigate-DA/78OHS1utgECZn_0d0xSoXg.cspx retrieved 04:15, 21 February 2012: Chrisrus (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary, feel free to edit[edit]

This news report states that Lee Kindlon, an Albany defense attorney running for the Albany County district attorney against the incumbant, David Sores, has accused Sores of illegally leaking Grand Jury information to NXIVM officials in order to help them silence a former member. He said Sores had knowing allowed a NXIVM member to work on a case being prepared against NXIVM which included testimony from the former member accusing NXIVM of illegal behavior, and that by doing so, helped NXIVM get the case dismissed. He called on Sores to release information regarding the case, and said "David Soares allowed his office to be infiltrated by an interested civilian witness who then manipulated the grand jury process for her own ends." Sores didn't call Fox23 back by press time.

WAMC Reports[edit]

Albany DA David Soares refutes abuse allegations made by Democratic electoral challenger Lee Kindlon Patrick Donges (2012-02-28) http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1908516/WAMC.New.York.News/Albany.DA.David.Soares.refutes.abuse.allegations.made.by.Democratic.electoral.challenger.Lee.Kindlon. Retrieved Chrisrus (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

This report calls NXIVM "a secretive, self-improvement organization based in Colonie, regarded by some as being cult-like in their operation"

The point is that Sores calls the allegations (see Fox23 report) "polically motivated" and groundless and that ... "both Keeffe and NXIVM were, "never given any information with respect to materials that were produced for the grand jury," Unquote. Chrisrus (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

TU article[edit]

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/NXIVM-pressed-district-attorney-3379748.php Chrisrus (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

clarity[edit]

I was totally confused by the section on the letter allegedly received by the Bronfman sisters. Checking the source, which appears to be Vanity Fair, I rewrote some of it to make clearer the otherwise confusing sequence of events. If I got it wrong, feel free to change it. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope you enjoyed reading the VF article. There are many more on the K Raniere talk page collected for you if you are interested, which I am crossing my fingers and hoping hard that you will be and will stay and continue. Chrisrus (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Deposit WNYT reports here[edit]

calls it only "an organization" http://albany.wnyt.com/news/news/114980-lee-kindlon-looks-da-soares-relationship-nxivm

Globe and Mail stories[edit]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/bronfman-heir-launches-canada-libya-initiative/article2372277/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2372277

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)

Format[edit]

Hey everyone. I know there are a lot of people who are passionate about this page, so I am taking this up on the here beforehand. I believe that the page isn't as focused on the organization as it should be, and there should be more information about it. Landmark Education has a well-formatted page. Obviously they are different, but the layout is something that looked good. I would like to see some of the information from this involved, which was the first thing that came up in a Google search for NXIVM evaluation.

It is about the Ethos program, and some highlights are: 92% said they had increased their emotional capacity; 97% say that at least 50% of the information is completely unique to Ethos; 96% said they have increased their intellectual capacity and performance; and 88% attribute their living more balanced lives to Ethos. Laundry Week (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your interest in improving this article. I don't see a problem copying format from Landmark Education, but am not so sure.
About http://www.psychologistsevaluations.com/nxivm-executive-success-programs/, it seems to be reporting self-published information, doesn't it? It says "according to the company's website, ..." many times on that page. Please tell us more about "psychologistsevaluations dot com". At its "home" page it says, "Each case study will utilize the coaching program’s company or administrator as the primary source of information." Chrisrus (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm actually not sure of the details on psychologist evaluations, but just came across it in a Google search. It does seem like they use the administrators, like you mentioned. Maybe it would be worth acknowledging the page in some way, saying something along the lines of "a study..."? I'll do a little work on the formatting as well. Laundry Week (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, we should probably tell the readers about the sources we're using. "According to a study (describe the research methods, etc.)" would be a good way to do it. Have you had a chance to familiarize yourself with any of the sources? That would be the first step, before editing the article before editing it in a substantive way, don't you think? How about the Forbes article and its follow-ups? If you haven't already, read it, I think you will find it interesting. The fact that there was a cover article about NXIVM in Forbes magazine is one of the main reasons this group passes notablitiy guidelines enough to even have an article. Chrisrus (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like a good way to approach the study. I had been familiar with the sources from before, but just went ahead and looked over those articles again (I could not find the first one on Forbes, but found it externally...unsure of where I read it the first time), and there is both positive and negative aspects in them. This information is probably where I differ when looking at the article: I don't see the need to have the Bronfman case be the focus. Doesn't it seem like it's not actually about NXIVM and it is just being tacked on because they are prominent members? The lawsuit is over blackmail between two private parties, not NXIVN, is it not? Laundry Week (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
What we call "the Bronfman incident" in the article does not seem to be referred to as such in any sources but rather seems to be what Espiens call it. It would be better to have the referent of that section be "the Forbes incident", the fact that Forbes magazine had published an article in which seems to have started as a survey of hot new (at that time) executive training programs entitled "The Best Business Schools" but which evolved to a major exposé cover story about NXIVM entitled "Cult of Personality". It was followed up in other articles in which the elder Bronfman recanted what he'd told the reported in the first article, but his opinion was not the only reason given in the first article for their depiction of the group as a "Cult of Personality". Chrisrus (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
(I assume Espiens is the term for the ESP advocates?) But the Forbes article doesn't really mention the Bronfman lawsuit that is extensively covered on the page, which is why I maintain that it is all tacked on. The information seems to be the biggest section, with its focus on a problem between two private parties. The more I look into it, the more I think it doesn't make sense. Laundry Week (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's replace the section with one called "Forbes Magazine Cover Story" or some such. In the body, we merely tell the reader just the basic facts about the Forbes magazine cover story. Can you write a fair description of the article? Also, we mustn't forget that there were two follow-ups which must be characterized faithfullly. Chrisrus (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. I'll do some work on a draft and will see if I can post it here on the Talk page this weekend for discussion. I also keep meaning to do some research on the news website you posted, so hopefully I'll be able to look around and contribute my thoughts. Laundry Week (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I was doing some work on the draft with the fair description, but I wanted to make sure I covered everything we were talking about. I know that we have the original and the follow up that you mentioned, but which is the second follow up? this one? Regardless, the follow-ups seem to be a lot shorter, so they shouldn't take too long to incorporate into the draft. Laundry Week (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yancuic articles[edit]

According to Guadalupe Yancuictlalpan, "Yancuic" means "New" in Nahuatl. Unknown to English Wikipedia, however, is the fact that is also the name of a Mexican Spanish website that just published a news item that speaks about the refernet of this article. If it is not WP:RS, we should ignore it, but here take a look: http://www.yancuic.com/nota.php?seccion=11&noticia=5755. I wonder if either the Spanish or Nahuatl wikipedias know about this news organization. Chrisrus (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The article Tania Libertad cites www.yancuic.com.Chrisrus (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Their site says things such as "On line information, Yancuic - News, operates as a news portal on the Internet"..."We are a group of journalists experienced in various disciplines that work together"..."news monitoring and analysis"...which make them sound like a legit news agency, but on the other hand they also say they do several other things, including "design and printing of corporate stationery" that make them sound like they'd print anything you paid them to. I hope they keep their departments separate! Every newspaper has an advertising design section, I guess it's no big deal. What do you all think, should we allow ourselves even to read the article, or do we need more information about this "Yancuic" organization? Chrisrus (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I know I'll take a look at it. My Spanish is a little limited, but as long as it is just reading, I should be alright...just might take me a little longer to get through it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laundry Week (talkcontribs) 20:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Forbes coverage[edit]

Below is what I wrote up for the coverage from Forbes. I tried to keep it focused on the coverage that was directed towards NXIVM. I don't know if it would make sense to incorporate some of it throughout the article at all to make it more fluid, so let me know what seems to make the most sense. I'll look around at it and see if it would even fit in elsewhere.

Draft:

In October 2003, Forbes featured an article focused on NXIVM and some involved parties. Originally intended to focus on NXIVM, the piece would also focus on founder Keith Raniere and his life. The emergence of NXIVM came at a time when the demand by executives was at a high, with some coaches charging $25,000 a day.

The article talked about some of the benefits of the course and went into the concerns of others. Critics cited the amount of confidentiality - students sign a nondisclosure agreement - and the amount of power that Raniere has over the operation and the students. A UCLA professor described it as “a kingdom of sorts” and a former student described becoming physically exhausted after going through 17-hour days of workshops and needing to check herself into the hospital. Advocates say the workshop sharpens focus, and has been described as a “practical M.B.A.” After the article was released, Sitrick and Company was hired to work on press surrounding the company, but would later part ways with NXIVM.

The initial article resulted in attention for the Bronfman family, with Edgar Bronfman Sr., Sara and Clare Bronfman having all taken part in courses. Edgar, who had originally endorsed it, had become concerned after seeing his daughters’ overall involvement in NXIVM and then said he “think[s] it is a cult.” A 2006 article was released about the Bronfman sisters, saying that they had taken out a line of credit to loan NXIVM US$2 million, repayable through personal training sessions from co-founder Nancy Salzman and for Salzman being available to take calls from Clare. A 2010 follow-up article talked about commodities and real estate deals related to Raniere advice going awry. In reference to Edgar’s relationship to his daughters, his advisor released a statement saying: “There has been no change in the excellent relations between Edgar M. Bronfman and his daughters, Clare and Sara.

Laundry Week (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

May I edit it? If so, please set it apart from text intended for individual, not group, expression, by setting it apart using the "block quote" button on the tool bar just above the editing space. Chrisrus (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I was unsure where it was on the toolbar, but I added the template I came across here, so let me know if there are any problems with that. If not, I'll check back on the changes for some discussion. Laundry Week (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Redundant gobbledygook[edit]

The "History" and "legal" sections contain identical prose. I would delete one or the other occurrence but frankly do not care to decipher where it is most appropriate. My76Strat (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Done - along with strongly POC "stuff" and material where the BLP issues woud require strnger (or any( sourcing - the article still needs work, however. Collect (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

O'Hara admits to felony[edit]

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/O-Hara-admits-to-felony-4520406.php

Courthouse News[edit]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/09/59196.htm

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/12/31/64178.htm

The Saratogian: Tighe shut down[edit]

http://www.saratogian.com/general-news/20131024/police-confiscate-local-bloggers-computers-in-nxivm-investigation Chrisrus (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Blogger and Ex-article editor John Tigue arrested for child pornography as a consequence of NXIVM-associated police raid on his computer[edit]

Chrisrus (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"Purple pill" pronunciation[edit]

Is it really pronounced the same as Nexium? -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. This brings up a good point: not everyone can read the pronunciation symbols, so, in addition to them, there should be a sound file. Chrisrus (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).