Talk:J. Gordon Melton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Melton's overview of Scientology in James R. Lewis, ed., "Scientology", Oxford University Press, 2009

This comment discusses an edited volume on Scientology featuring an introductory essay by Melton.

First, I know my anonymous address detracts from my credibility. I'm honestly not a sock-puppet or otherwise need to hide my identity, it's just that I used to waste too much time editing so I got rid of my account to curb the habit. I'm also not an anti-Scientology (let along an anti-New Religious Movement) activist, although I've read a lot of the journalistic commentary on the Church and my opinion of it, I freely acknowledge, is generally negative -- but not reflexively so.

Dr. Melton contributes a lengthy overview of the Church's history ("The Birth of a Religion"), immediately after the Introduction. It reads, in my opinion, almost like a PR account.

First, Melton's reference to the Church's payment policy for auditing are brief and offhand and don't contextualize it comparatively, i.e. they do not note that few if any other churches charge so much money so their essential religious rituals. The Church of Latter-Day Saints, for instance, expects a significant financial commitment from members, but they can still participate in all aspects of the Church (including, if I'm not mistaken, Temple rituals) while declining to contribute money.

Second, neither Melton's chapter nor those of others in the book, furthermore, refer to the Church of Scientology's aggressive and explicit policy of suing critics (stemming from L. Ron Hubbard's "Fair Game" policy). The book includes a well-researched article by James Richardson on "Scientology in Court," but it ignores this kind of litigation to concentrate exclusively on the Church's struggles for religion status in various countries.

Third, Melton does not say anything about the "Free Zone" body of Scientology organizations outside the official Church; these would seem to be a legitimate part of the "Birth of a Religion." No overview of Mormonism, for instance, would ignore the existence of independent Mormon churches outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Finally, the biographical sketch of L. Ron Hubbard which makes up a large part of the chapter is unrelentingly eulogistic. It is full of charming anecdotes ("Befriended by the local Blackfoot Indians, he was made a blood brother at the age of six") and unconditional rebuttals of criticism. Melton ends the chapter with a moving description of the desk and writing materials kept in each Scientology center "as if one day [Hubbard] might walk into the building and need a place to continue his work." Honestly, the whole chapter would be an effective pamphlet for distribution at Scientology centers.

I do not for an instant question Dr. Melton's or other NRM scholars' good faith or scholarly expertise, but I suspect that the nature of the research, beginning from an explicit (and appropriate, for scholarly research) posture of non-judgment, can slide towards apologetics -- especially since the Church makes an effort to win scholars' good will, as it does with celebrities. I wish that Melton and other researchers would interrogate the Church's point of view as skeptically as those of the Church's critics. Also, while I know nothing about the financial support of Dr. Melton's research, I hope that all NRM researchers will be scrupulous about declaring any financial support for their research from the Church (including paying travel costs and subsidizing conferences). The situation, I suspect, is similar to that of medical researchers who overtime become more or more compromised by the support for their research provided by pharmaceutical companies.

I intend this comment in the spirit of honest discussion, with no disrepect to Dr. Melton as an academic scholar, and would be interested in others' opinions on it. 152.160.39.70 (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• This "Talk" page is not a forum. What does your review of his book have anything to do with improving the article? Maybe this should be moved to the discussion on Scientology? --Thorwald (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Melton as a sociologist

I don't think that Melton is a sociologist. Andries 01:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

He can be considered one: He works with sociologists and coublishes papers. Check [1] --Zappaz 18:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The article says nowhere that he has a degree in sociology. Andries 18:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You'r right. Thanks. --Zappaz 19:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I think he's primarily a religious scholar, and I don't think he ever said Aum Shinriko was "innocent". He probably said that the man deserved to be tried. So I've taken out the following from the criticism section:

erroneously declared Aum to be innocent

Can we get a source, or at least a quote for "declared them innocent"? Because if he only said "should be considered innocent until proven guilty" or something else other than THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT then that should be in the arrticle, instead of the current "defending those nasty mass murderers" bit of defamation. Uncle Ed 20:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Introvigne wrote this somewhere and Anton Hein too. He went together with James Lewis who in contrast to Melton suspected Aum Shinrikyo of drugs trafficking. Andries 22:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I also read it in the book NRMs in the 21st century but the names of the persons were omitted because it was clearly a painful affair for them. Andries 22:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Vampirism

Why isn't his self-identification as a vampire (for which he has been mocked by many) included? AnonMoos 16:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because others aren't aware of it? I suggest you be bold and add it. Antonrojo 12:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this? Smeelgova 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

All I had were memories of sarcastic Internet postings by cult-apologist watchers (in which it seemed apparent that he takes the Vampire thing as seriously as the most fanatical Trekkie takes Star Trek), but in the article as it stands at the current moment, footnotes 9-15 are devoted to documenting this.AnonMoos 14:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

That section speaks about one thing only: the accusations of cult apologism. There is no need to divide it subsections, unless the idea is to give more prominence to the critics in the table of contents. And that is unacceptable as per NPOV undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please allow the subheadings to stay in. There are more sources out there for these subheadings and this information will be added, and the subsections expanded. At present the article is way too unbalanced. Smeelgova 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Each of these matters are separate issues, and not simply "allegations of cult apologism." Smeelgova 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

These are exactly that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have compromised and removed the subsections and replace them with subheadings only. They will not appear in the Table of Contents. Hopefully once these subheadings have been expanded upon with more information from cited sources, they can stand alone as individual subsections. For the moment I will mark this article as unbalanced. Smeelgova 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Please stop. Cult apologism references and the Aum Shirinkyo incident should be explained separately. Smeelgova 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Subheadings were incorrect, and I fixed them. Please do not undo all my edits and give me a chance to contribute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop for a moment. I have a method to this. I am attempting to compromise with you. I was in the middle of editing when you interrupted me. At least give me a chance to try to work with you and take a break from this article for just 10 minutes. Please. Smeelgova 16:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Fair enough. But do not use the {{inuse}} tag or the unbalance tag without discussing first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi

Why are you not agreeing to your peace offering??? I was actively editing this article before you. I was in the process of major editing. I was attempting to compromise with you. Why are you being so impatient with me? If you give me a chance you will see that I will work and compromise, but you have to stop reverting all of my changes. Please. Smeelgova 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

I said OK above. But do not use these tags while you are editing. The inuse tage can be used when there is an agreement that one editor wants to edit for a while. The Unbalanced tag is one used to invite a discussion, not to make a point. So have your 15 minutes, and add the {{Infobox_Scientist}} as well as you have done on other articles, if you could. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I will. Sigh. Thank you. I would also like for us to discuss more on the talk page why you feel that you don't agree with the subheadings before changing this. I have compromised and removed them from the subsections format, as you requested, so that they do not show up in the Table of Contents, as you has wanted. As you request, I will add the scientist infobox if you give me a chance. Thank you. Smeelgova 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Unbalanced

Per the "Unbalanced" box: A Wikipedian has expressed the opinion that this article or section is unbalanced. Please help improve the article by adding information and sources on neglected viewpoints.

• This is not an RFC, yet, but a request for other editors who are not actively involved or invested in opinions about the subject matter of this article - to weigh in on the unbalanced state, and lack of enough criticism as balanced against other material in the article. There are more sources/citations out there about criticism of this individual's actions, monetary compensation/influence on research, and research itself. I believe that criticism of J. Gordon Melton is a "neglected viewpoint." Thank you. Smeelgova 16:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

The criticism of Melton is not neglected as there is a full section on criticism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I agree with your moving the tag, however, the criticism section could certainly be expanded with relation to the rest of the material and the size of the article. Please, I am still making some more edits. Please bear with me. Smeelgova 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

• Let us see if other less POV editors than ourselves will comment in this section about their opinions. Smeelgova 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

I do not see many editors flocking to edit this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Let us allow the rest of this particular section for other editors. Give it time please. Smeelgova 17:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Original research

The sentence "Melton is critical of anti-NRM sources, and especially the testimonies of former members" is OR. The source provided discusses concerns of testimonies of former members in detail. That is not "criticism" but scholarship. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal

We need to add rebuttals from Melton, related to accusations of "cult apologism". There are good sources for this: [2] and [3] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Subheadings

• I honestly feel that the subheadings provide logical clarity for the reader. I also feel that there are distinct differences in sources and material relating to the various aspects of criticism. It does not all simply focus on the label of cult apologist. The Aum Shrinkyo incident, financial motivations, etc. each stand alone in their own right. Other new religious movement scholars have been criticized on each of these points, and yet not necessarily been accused of cult apologism in the same stroke. These examples/sources/citations should be cultivated separately. As to the use of the subheadings format in general in the article - I feel that it is a good way to separate out sources and interesting material. Even if the material is slightly related to other section - in this manner it can flow from one subheading to the next, kind of like a segue. Smeelgova 17:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

The subheadings in the whole article are quite random and confusing. The criticism section should be kept small, after all this is a biographical article and not an article on the political opponents in the ACM. That is fully described in other articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidently you do not feel that way on articles like Margaret Singer. Significant criticism exists on this highly controversial individual from reputable sources. These should be included in the article. Smeelgova 17:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Of course. Each and all significant criticism should be included. The controversy about Singer, is a most different situation: legal disputes, conspiracy theories and the lot. Also note that this is a BLP and Singer's article is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because a person is not living does not give someone the right to denigrate them in such a manner. And Melton is arguably just as controversial as you believe Singer to be. That Aum Shrinkyo thing, and accepting money from groups like Aum and Children of God??? And defending People's Temple??? Yeesh. Smeelgova 17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Sure he is controversial. Any scholar worth its salt will raise controversy one way or another. As a BLP, we have guidelines that we need ty follow that are more stringent than for other articles, in particular about sources. I would argue that the article on Singer and DIMPAC is excellently sourced thanks to our combined efforts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then Jossi, was that almost a compliment about acknowledging my efforts? Hrm... maybe we are gettings somewhere... Smeelgova 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Violations of BLP

Please do not add poorly sourced speculation to this article as it is in violation of WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not poorly sourced. I have provided citations for every single sentence, and most of it is backed up by the "Coffin Breaks" article. Smeelgova 17:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

I read the article. Show me were it speaks of Melton being a director of such society. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that particular article only said he was a member of the society. At any rate, I am in the process of providing some very interesting citations - from CESNUR's own website no less! Evidently Introvigne and Melton are quite proud of their Vampire heritage and Melton's title as "Dracula Ambassador" - just don't quite know why that belongs on a Study of New Religions web site... WIP... Smeelgova 17:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Just be careful, Smeelgova with citing sources and extrapolating POVs. You must be reading too many ACM articles in which they attempt to discredit this brilliant scholar. I mean, this [4]] is just way too funny. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are reading too many Dracula conferences where they extol him? Please do not assume what I am doing or attempt to characterize me on talk-pages. That is highly inappropriate. Smeelgova 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

What, exactly is your argument? The stuff about vampires is real, and so is the "neck" quote. Both Introvigne and Melton are vampirologists. I have "The Vampire book" by Melton right here at home. --Tilman 19:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Which "neck" quote are you referring to? Is this something that could go in the article? Smeelgova 19:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Melton says that he, Introvigne and their friends are "a bunch of silly people dressing up and biting each other on the neck." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

J. Z. Knight

Melton also testified in trial and later in a book funded by JZ Knight that she is sincere and not a fraud. (See LA Times 26.7.1998 and [5] )

(About her sincerity: J.Z. Knight sued Julie Ravell, another "Ramtha" channeler, in Austria for copyright violation and "interfering in a business" [6] [7] ) --Tilman 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

*The Transylvanian Society of Dracula

A "professional organization"? Really? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Transylvanian Society of Dracula is a non-profit, cultural-historical organization specializing in two main areas of interest.... The vampire myth, particularly that of Dracula (in the West) and the impact of this character on the culture and myths of Romania. Vlad Dracula or Vlad the Impaler, the 15th century ruler of Wallachia (part of the modern Romania.) Since the appearance of his namesake, Bram Stoker's vampire Count Dracula in 1897, the work of an ever-growing number of writers and film-makers has been i nspired by Stoker's creation. This has resulted in an increasing awareness and interest in the fascinating history of Vlad Dracula. The Society provides a clearing house of information pertaining to the serious study of Dracula and related topics. Its members comprisehistorians, folklorists, literary critics, researchers, students, film enthusiasts - anyone with a serious interest in Dracula.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Balance, NPOV, and minority views

Please take some time and refresh your memories in regard to the distinctions between NPOV, balance, and minority views.

Read:

• WP:NPOV#A_vital_component:_good_research
• WP:NPOV#Undue_weight

And the FAQ Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22

The reason I am asking this, is because of a trend I have observed on some editors that use the argument of "balance" as a way to introduce certain views as if these were majority views or more significant that they are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please add more to the summary from other areas of his life that are important. But these criticisms have been raised about Melton time and time again. I will restore. You can add more to the intro to provide "balance" from other sources. Smeelgova 16:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, these have been raised again and again by opponents. And proper weight should be given accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I have restored a compromise/version of intro. We need more info on how Melton has been discredited as a witness due to the Aum Shinrikyo and People's Temple comments in several instances in the article. Smeelgova 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Please add more info to intro if you feel you must, but leave in the conflict of interest stuff - it is only two lines, and now phrased in a general, NPOV manner. Smeelgova 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I continue to disagree. The lead needs to summarize the article. You are giving undue weight to these accusations. Why don't you "write for the enemy" and add the rebuttals by Melton, instead? (source provided in to do list) I will be busy today so will not be able to edit until late evening. Happy editing.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I will try to get to adding the rebuttals from Melton in the lead and in the article. Smeelgova 17:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I also must admit, that I find Smeelgova's attempts to discredit this person by means of mentioning the "dracula" thing in the lead, to be peculiar and not well intended. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I must admit, that I find your mention of me specifically in this talk page in this manner to be highly inappropriate. Evidently Melton is very proud of his Dracula work, and does not mind being cited for it, he has placed it all over the web. The fact that he is the president of the society is very relevant. Smeelgova 17:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Violation of WP:ATT#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources

quote from "Finding Englightenment" may violate "it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject" from WP:ATT#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources

"My encounter with many Evangelical Christians helped shape my life's work. However, over the years I have been mostly disappointed with the Christian writing in this area. Instead of attempting to understand the teachings of a group, too frequently writers only compared quotes from the group's literature with biblical passages, both often out of context."

Andries 09:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Though Melton is a Christian, I think his writings tend to be anti-Christian counter cult writings, because of what he sees as distortions and caricatures by Christian countercultist writings. Andries 10:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see what you mean - the article mentions that he is a critic of the CC movement - and although this doesn't rule out that he is part of it - it does make it less likely that he is part of it. Sfacets 12:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jonestown is not a cult, is a cult (depending the purpose)

"The tragedy at Jonestown ... in spite of having little relationship to nonconventional religions in general, was transformed by the anti-cult movement and the media into the definitive cult horror story." (Chicago Tribune, 25.11.1988)

"The People's Temple was a congregation in a Christian denomination recognized by the National Council of Churches," he said. "This wasn't a cult. This was a respectable, mainline Christian group." (Milwaukee Journal, 3.12.1988)

"Jones became a cult leader and the Peoples Temple became a cult, literally overnight. And what was forgotten was that this was actually a church in a mainstream religion.... He was about as mainstream as you could get." (The Sacramento Bee, 15.11.1998)

"The first was Jonestown. While the Peoples Temple had nothing to do with New Religions, within hours of the deaths in Guyana, it had been labeled a cult" (Self-consciousness in the Study of New Religions, A talk given at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Ministries to New Religions held at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky February 22-23, 2002 - cornerstonemag.com)

J. Gordon Melton, of the Santa Barbara-based Institute for the Study of American Religion, was one of the most persuasive witnesses in the Pierce County case, according to Kaukl. "He said that if you look at the earmarks of a cult, the leader having complete control, like Jim Jones did at Jonestown, you don't see that out there" at the Ramtha school, Kaukl said. "You do see people who are very taken by her (Knight), but that doesn't mean she's wrapped them up in a mental straightjacket," Kaukl said. (The Olympian, January 27, 2008) http://www.theolympian.com/news/v-print/story/339950.html

--Tilman (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Links to Rick Ross website news article quotes

In my opinion the citation links provided in the "Criticism" section are problematic and should be replaced by either direct links to the sources indicated, if available online, or replaced by straightforward standard bibliographical information. I'm hard pressed to believe that Rick Ross is in any sense "neutral" on the topic of Melton, at least partly demonstrated by the practise on the website of emboldening certain words in some of the quoted articles to emphasize Ross's interpretation of the facts. When we're dealing with a subject which has as much potential controversy attached to it as this one does, I believe that minimally we owe it to the readers of the encyclopedia to at least attempt to ensure that any material which is being directly linked to as the "original" source of the information in the article, should be above any hint of bias. I honestly don't believe that is the case in this section of this article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

TSD

I'm just making minor changes to TSD related information to improve accuracy and add appropriate references, and I'm still looking for indications that the american chapter even exists. Most people I've asked directly don't know. If anyone has web site information that is updated in the past few years, please let me know or update it on the main TSD page. --Jasonnolan (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is isreligion.org WP:RS at all?

The isreligion.org domain is registered to Rodney Stark, 170 Camino Rayo Del Sol, Corrales, New Mexico. Surely Baylor University has an official .edu domain? Hmm, www.baylor.edu, why yes, yes it does. So what is isreligion.org exactly, a Personal web site or what? AndroidCat (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The name isreligion.org stands for the "Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion", a department of Baylor University. It has multiple content providers (not just Mr Stark), its web page content is controlled by the Baylor.edu web servers, and you can navigate to it from the Baylor.edu web site: http://www.baylor.edu/isreligion/index.php?id=54301

Rodney Stark is an extremely well-known religious scholar and is co-director of the Institute. Since he is an accredited academic authority in the field of religious studies, citing this domain name is not a violation of WP:RS. EricP (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Libel claims

Invited people from BLP Notice board to visit and here is the side discussion on thorwald's user page Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Text in Dispute: Additionally, according to the financial books of the Children of God, his institute received money from the organization. This happened after he wrote favorably about them.

So, Weaponbb7 and I have been engaged in somewhat of a revert war about claims of libel in my recent edits. I am, by no means, a legal expert, but I thought that one had to have "malicious intent to knowingly disseminate false information about another party". As far as I can tell, I have done no such thing. I would like to get other editors in on this. The information in question is my noting that Melton received monies from the Family Care Foundation (FCF; part of the Family International NRM) to write a book about they. I provided a link to the IRS 990 Form clearly showing that Melton was paid $10,065.83 (on page 38) by FCF. This is directly from the IRS (but stored on another site). Anyone can verify the authenticity of this 990 Form. If I am going to read a book about a group of people and I later learn that the author of the book was paid by the group to write about them, I want to know that. It might mean the author was a bit biased (or, maybe not, but I would still wish to know). Either way, here is the information I included in the main article that Weaponbb7 claims is libel: "Additionally, according to the financial books of the Children of God, his institute received money from the organization. This happened after he wrote favorably about them." Does anyone else believe that this constitutes libel? IRS 990 Form has even gone so far as to issue a "Level 1 Warning" (whatever that is) on my talk page. --Thorwald (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

its a big claim accusing some one academic fraud specifically since you alleged source does not say anything about what the money was for. not mention i can't find melton writing anything about them during the period so WP:OR at that. So yes potentially libelous poorly sourced to a wiki no less. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That is simply your opinion. I happen to know that neither Melton nor the FCF deny that he was paid for writing that book about them. In fact, the Family International have a page devoted to his book on them. Also, Lord Justice Ward, in a case regarding the Family International, mentions this fact in his lengthy final judgment. None of the parties involve deny that he was paid to write about them. Again, I am not accusing Melton of anything; I am simply pointing out that he was (non-disputably) paid by a group to write a book about them. So, no, it is not "potentially libelous" nor "poorly sourced". Anyone else feel like weighing in? --Thorwald (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Linking the statement of an alleged payment in 2000 to 1994 book is a stretch. makes it seem like your trying to imply something sinister and sourcing both those statements to a wiki no less! Not two mention WP:REDFLAGs everywhere on this Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What's xfamily.org's status vis-à-vis WP:RELY? We obviously should be especially careful in our sourcing of material in a BLP if we're going to be making claims of the type being put forward here, that potentially go directly after someone's reputation. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if I can make this clearer for everyone. The link to the IRS 990 Form just happens to be sitting on xfamily.org's site; it is the original (and you can easily verify this with any of the following sites (that is where the one on xfamily.org came from, as indicated on their website): 990 Finder IRS Form 990 lookup tool (provides PDF copies of annual returns), Guidestar IRS Form 990's and other information for selection of nonprofits, and/or NCCS IRS Form 990 search tool and nonprofit organization profiles. Also, the Judgment of Lord Justice Ward (which clearly states that Melton was paid by the FCF to write a book on the NRM) just happens to be stored on xfamily.org, but, again, you can easily find the originals through HM Court Service. Let me make this clear again: Every single last claim in my original edit (the one we are debating here) can be backed up by very reliable sources (e.g., the IRS, Lord Justice Ward, HM Court Service, etc.). If we can all agree that they are reliable sources, can we also agree that including said information does not constitute libel? Note that I didn't start this whole debate. I came across the information backing up what I wrote from this article and this website. They, too, provide plenty of references to reliable sources. --Thorwald (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No one here is disputing he has written about COG/TFI (and as the author of "Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religion" he has written on about everyone ). Your allegation that they are paying him to "write nice things" is utterly baseless OR and sourcing it on wiki (by no means a RS)! Your also indicating a 1994 book Sex Slander and Salvation a book he "edited" not "wrote" which like Melton has some pretty most Prominent names in the field of Sociology of Religion attached like James T. Richardson, Susan J. Palmer, Stuart Wright, Massimo Introvigne and the Sherperd brothers. Even if you assumption was true about the money being for things written may a point out that the alleged documentation is for the year 2000! i highly doubt they would wait 6 years to pay him for it. Your interpeation based on some PDF tax form on the internet purporting to from a source that i can't seem to duplicated any where else! you are also pointing to Anton Hien's website which is by no means a RS (Anton Complains that Melton doesnt call group "heretics"). Kent's article raises WP:REDFLAGs claiming there is a conspiracy to prevent him from publishing work and that the Prominent Sociologists of religion are running around being puppet for these movements. its realy almost laughableWeaponbb7 (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are just stating your own opinion on things. They have little to do with facts. First, you stated that "Your interpeation[sic] based on some PDF tax form on the internet purporting to from a source that i can't seem to duplicated any where else!" That is false for several reasons. You can easily find that (official and IRS-submitted) 990 Form using the links I gave above (did you even try?). I am not "interpreting" this 990 Form. It clearly states that Melton received monies from the FCF. That is all it states and that is all I was claiming. However, other documents (which I linked to; including Lord Justice Ward's) explain why Melton was paid. If you would just reads these sources, you would see that FCF did not wait 6 years to pay him; it was simple bookkeeping. Anyway, I am not interested in debating with you anymore, since your "mind is made up". I am interested in what other editors have to say about this. If no else (but Weaponbb7) opposes, I shall return the information in question to the main article. --Thorwald (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, both the "Apologist" and "Anti-Cult" camps of scholars do claim to be persecuted minorities according to Zablocki.[8] AndroidCat (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There's certainly no need to resort to primary sources, since the topic has been hotly debated through published secondary sources.

• Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin (2001). "'O Truant Muse': Collaborationism and Research Integrity". Misunderstanding cults: searching for objectivity in a controversial field. University of Toronto Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-0802081889. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

AndroidCat (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Thorwald , I'd like to please request that the contested material not be re-entered into the article until further discussion has occurred. I downloaded and examined the document from the link that you provided titled "Judgment of Lord Justice Ward" and I'd like some clarification if you would. In what way do you believe that the material found in that document supports your apparent contention by inference that Melton's professional opinions on this particular organization were influenced favourably in a "non-objective" sense? Perhaps you could provide us with a page number so that we can delve into that. My own brief examination of the document indicates to me that Judge Ward seems to consider Melton quite trustworthy in his perspective on the group. On page 217, Ward calls Melton "independent and objective" in his determinations regarding the group and that his opinions "command respect" in that regard. On page 91, Ward offers the opinion that the organization appears to "stand condemned" by Melton in some of his testimony. I'm at at a loss in determining how these sorts of notions in this material support the contention that Melton is unprofessionally biased in his approach to this organization. Could you please clarify this for us? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of "Spam"

Weaponbb7, you removed a number of ELs, labeling them as spam as justification for removing them. I don't see how WP:SPAM applies to these links. Could you frame your reason for these removals within WP:EL, hopefully something specific in WP:ELNO? AndroidCat (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)