Talk:NXIVM

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Removal of NXIVM influences image

Currently under "Beliefs and practises" is a list of claims of influences on Raniere presented in an image. For example, Tony Robbins. I've searched through the sources but cannot find anything supporting this idea, outside a notion that Tony Robbins is a self-help guru and this was what Raniere was trying to be? The same goes for NLP, Rand, Hypnosis, Erikson and most of that image.

For example, Raniere writing on a defunct website that Asimov was a favorite author isn't proof of influence. This is why Rand is there, too. But Rand is a popular author and so apparently this would go on many pages? What if we discovered he'd read Harry Potter? We'd add that too?

Under the logic presented by this influences image, virtually all wikipedia pages would have one. And they can be a grab-bag what concepts without strong proof behind them. If we suddenly learned Raniere loved basketball, would it be in the image?

Crowley (OTO) is on there too and why? Where is the supporting proof?

The image was created by a user and makes claims not supported by sources. Science fiction and acting are in there and what source supports that?

I suggest the image be removed entirely from this article and the other it is placed in. It does not add clarity but confusion, ties together disparate ideas/concepts without source material supporting them and given subject was engaged in criminal enterprise, makes pejorative association between concepts without good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewritingfish (talk • contribs)

If we suddenly learned Raniere loved basketball The standard for inclusion is a WP:Reliable Source discussing linkage to NXIVM beliefs and practices, not us going through Raniere's writings ourselves and trying to guess what we think influenced him.

Above you claim NLP and Scientology are not sourced, but actually, both topics are discussed extensively in reliable sources mentioned in the caption. As you may not have a copy of the print/ebook, here's an online source: "As Raniere slowly started to merge the tactics of control used by the Church of Scientology with NLP, NXIVM was born."

Similarly, we don't include Asimov because of Raniere writing on a defunct website that Asimov was a favorite author; It's because WP:Reliable Source makes that link. But they don't base it on "favorite author" claims, they cite this: Raniere quote: "It was at the age of 12, I read “The Second Foundation” by Isaac Asimov and was inspired by the concepts on optimal human communication to start to develop the theory and practice of Rational Inquiry."

What if we discovered he'd read Harry Potter? We'd add that too? If reliable sources reported that Harry Potter influenced NXIVM beliefs and and practices, absolutely we would! Suppose RSes talked about how an essential ritual of the NXIVM induction involved a sorting hat, absolutely that fact would merit inclusion in the article.

Inline-sourcing has been added to make it even clearer for readers. Feoffer (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Feoffer (talk)

Thank you for your explanation. I'll clarify my objections to this image.

I believe it is original research. It is not created by any secondary party, taken from a source. It is not like an image of the model of the solar system or a human cell that can be referenced and sourced as is accepted as fact. This is your interpretation of influences. Blavatsky for example. How can this be justified for inclusion in this image? Steiner? When I go searching through the sources there is sometimes only passing reference. In some cases, the source that is cited is a journalist writing their spin on the story. Like Tony Robbins exists, self-help gurus exist, Tony Robbins is mentioned by someone in an article and now Tony Robbins is listed as an influence.

This is your own work. At its core it is original research and I'll cite part of the article on this: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

I'm going to go further on this that some of the sources are secondary sources and not primary. They are referencing each other, drawing links not supported by a primary source.

Synthesis of published material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here."

This is very directly what this image is doing. This image and connections drawn do no exist in any of the sources cited. I cannot see how an image with "acting" in it as part of the flowchart isn't original research with you synthesizing various things together.

You have created and uploaded your own image, which is good as wikipedia needs images. However it clearly introduces unpublished ideas and arguments. Not any source presented support the synthesis that has been put forward.Thewritingfish (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Tony Robbins is mentioned by someone in an article and now Tony Robbins is listed as an influence. Robbins's influence is extensively discussed in the book-length work by Natalie & Hardin, as is Scientology, NLP, et al. Don't confuse the convenience sources provided to you here on talk with the actual sources used to write the article. Repeated accusations of Unsourced, after having been previously refuted, are not conducive to conversation. RSes are unanimous: Raniere was influenced by Robbins, and our text and images reflect that. Feoffer (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Robbins isn't the only thing I've pointed out however. You have acting in that image. And other philosophers. The navy. I am open to being corrected but I am very certain the book does not claim or support a sourced link between acting, Hubbard and then Raniere. I also asked about Blavatsky. Are you saying this image is entirely sourced and supported by the book? Including the extra extensions of sci-fi, acting, the navy? Crowley?

I don't think I've seen influences images like this before on Wikipedia, which is why it struck me as synthesized original research. I've looked and dug and read most of the references but I can't find the assumptions in this image supported. I found this: http://dyingwords.net/nxivm-the-crazy-sex-cult-of-keith-raniere/ which has the image and the text making the claims. But that's not a source.

From https://www.artvoice.com/2019/07/07/did-isaac-asimov-inspire-keith-raniere-to-be-the-mule/ "His other heroes are novelist Ayn Rand; Indian pacifist/freedom fighter Mahatma Gandhi; Austrian philosopher, Rudolph Steiner; hypnotist Dr. Milton Erickson; and judo teacher/acrobat Eugene Waddell. Raniere is not known to have met any of them." -- so why isn't Mahatma Gandhi in the image? Who determined what constituted "influence" and what warranted inclusion?

I have not read the book so I am asking is this the source of Blavatsky and the other philosophers listed in the image? Is there the explicit proven link drawn to Crowley?

I'd also like to understand why acting is in the image and why this is relevant and which source specifically supports that. I've never seen influence networks created like this that went multiple steps and included broad concepts like acting. Thewritingfish (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

why isn't Mahatma Gandhi in the image? Because Raniere's claims are not a reliable source, so no reliable sources cite Gandhi as an influence on Raniere. In contrast, sources do cite the influences of Rand , Steiner, Erickson, Acting and Judo on both Raniere and his organization. Feoffer (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Twelve-point Mission Statement by Keith Raniere.pdf

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I have replied to the individual who wrongfully attributed this public domain work to the NY Times. Evackost (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea why the people at Commons and Wikisource keep actively refusing to read, but here is the judge's order that clearly states that Nancy Salzman surrendered ownership of "First Principles, Incorporated" and "assets rights thereof, including . . . intellectual property rights"

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.420065/gov.uscourts.nyed.420065.1109.0.pdf Evackost (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Disregard, I don't even want to bother anymore. Evackost (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Patent drawing, "Determination of whether a luciferian can be rehabilitated".png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Knife of Aristotle citations

The Paste magazine article used for the reference for the Knife of Aristotle section seems like it maybe should not be used, because it is from a source that's really only considered reliable for music industry and popular entertainment news. It seems like the article is more of an opinion editorial rather than a fact-checked piece. Check WP:RS and other Wikipedia guideline pages for what we can consider to be reliable sources. Newatlascamels (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The author of the Paste magazine article seems to have derived his opinion that The Knife was "a cult" by citing a Forbes article that said NXIVM had cult-like behavior. It claims The Knife was fake or used suspect methods merely based on association, and not through any real analysis of their news assessment methodology - this is not an investigative journalism piece, but an op-ed based on Googling around and loosely connecting assumptions with other articles. Tsgram (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The Paste article doesn't provide a reliable source and it wasn't properly developed. While the DOS group within NXIVM is obviously a cult group, it doesn't necessarily mean that the NXIVM organization as a whole (or its other business arms) were a part of "the cult." CapnPhantasm (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)