If this article becomes too big because we find sources for more and more governments reports with lists of cults, we can eventually model it after List of drugs. Smee07:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Name
To continue the discussion started by Really Spooky, this article should be renamed to something like Groups that have been referred to as cults in non-governmental sources that illustrates that some of the reports are not current. Sfacets 07:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm good point :) Ok then, this article should be renamed Groups that have been referred to as cults in governmental sources or similar... (sometimes I just read too fast). Sfacets 07:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
How is that any different than the current name of the article? Mind you I took the name practically verbatim from its subsection heading under the previous article, which was long-stable and had consensus. Smee07:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Previous subsection heading under the article List of groups referred to as cults, was Groups referred to as cult in government reports. All that was changed was that "List of..." was added to the beginning. In fact, the reasoning why this was done in this way was precisely so it would have the most consensus from the prior stable version... Smee08:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Well I question that - since it is a different matter if the time-frame within news sources is ambiguous, and another when dealing with Government reports there is a degree more at stake in regards to the reputation of these groups, and we should deal with them with a degree of extra caution in regards to neutrality and any eventual prejudice that could be caused by inadequately describing the place the groups hold within the various countries. Sfacets 08:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Even more reason why the title of the article should be "reports", and not "governmental sources". Put another way, an official "report", as representative of the research of that particular government as a whole, is relatively unambiguous, and can be attributed to a particular government, in a particular year. However, "governmental sources", could refer to anything, for instance a single Senator/Congressman's statements, etc. Smee08:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Alright, I don't have so much of a qualm about using "reports", however something should be included that indicates the discontinuity of the application of Governement reports in regards to these groups such as "List of groups that have been referred to as cults in government reports"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfacets (talk • contribs) 08:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
That is a long and rather unwieldy approach. The word "referred" is already in the past-tense, and I have set up the article with subsections and subheadings within the subsections, specifically to denote the year of the report(s). Hope that helps as to the intention of the setup of the article. Smee08:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Sfacets, Gatorgalen is promoting LOGRTAC English-tense title rhetoric reform that is essentially De minimus. Which not to say that his point isn't correct, but that codes of law and systems of rules don't, can't, and/or shouldn't provide a remedy for such small degrees of unfairness, due to the other Whac-A-Mole problems such attempts would cause. Recognizing this limit is essential to being a good rulecrafter and designer of human systems.
I'm not saying there's no way to make a further diminishing-returns improvement, but lengthening an already unwieldy title is probably not the way to do it. Milo12:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, this is good, it seems we are all coming to a consensus on the established title - which had already been in place as a stable subsection heading for quite some time. Smee14:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
POV - section
Not sure without looking at it more if this is a POV fork but certainly Smee cherry-picked that 1979 US report. Look at all recent State Dept reports on Human Rights abuse in Germany to see that Scientology, for ex., is a minority religion, not a cult --Justanother15:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
PLEASE STOP all of the violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Comment on content, notcontributors. The title of this article is: "List of groups referred to as cults in government reports". That is exactly the nature of material included. This subsection was long in existence and stable at List of groups referred to as cults. The only main reason for the move was because it was getting to large over there, nothing more, nothing less. Smee15:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
You're both right, but both of you could have handled this tiff better. Smee, behavior is commentable and not a PA. Justanother, unless you have reasonable evidence of Smee's state of mind (courts do admit such evidence) then you need to reword your complaint to focus on the the objectional behavior. In this case, 'That 1979 US report appears to have been cherry-picked' or 'I think {or in my opinion; or I suggest} that 1979 US report was cherry-picked' followed by the evidence you presented which was ok. Now, I wasn't clearly persuaded of cherry picking by your evidence, but that's a debate issue. Smee's stated defense seems reasonable, but I haven't researched it either. If you really want to persuade other editors, find and present the clickable diffs to back your claim. On the other hand, this is so trivial that Smee should probably have said 'I didn't do that, please AGF. Followed by the defense evidence he presented which was also ok.
I respectfully suggest that you both go back and re-edit your own posts to present your cases better, or at least remove the bolded shouting. Strikeouts are appropriate for changing mistaken facts and changed voting positions. Delete and replace with thread-change disclosure is appropriate for making inflammatory remarks invisible. If you choose to do this — to maintain thread continuity — at the end of your re-edited post and following the existing signature, write "Re-edited {'to remove unintended incivility'", or whatever seems politically appropriate including nothing but 'Re-edited' if you decide not to apologize.} ~~~~~" The five tildes just insert the date. You can add more than one re-edit date if necessary.
I hope this helps. Milo19:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, IMHO the answer to your concern is precisely to add context to the 1979 report to which you refer by putting in information about the US Government's current position. Whatever the motives may appear to be to you, you can hardly fault Smee for putting information into Wikipedia that is indisputably factually accurate and well-sourced. That can only be a good thing. -- Really Spooky11:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Request for Comment - Listing groups referred to as cults in government reports, in this article.
Please see discussion above. This information was long stable with consensus as a subsection under the article List of groups referred to as cults. The material was then split here because the subsection was getting too long. It is historically relevant, and in-line with the article, to list groups referred to as cults in government reports, in the article List of groups referred to as cults in government reports Smee15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
You cannot present cherry-pick a single 27-year old report, that appears to me to have been "cherry-picked, and present simply that without a valid challenge of neutrality. Scientology is a recognized religion in the US, not a "cult" and I can fill the page with government reports that support that and that would be the majority view and should have the majority of space in the article. Here are 238 hits from one US agency. Wanna guess How many call Scientology a "cult" vs how many call it a "religion"? Add "cult" to the search and see. It is an educational exercise. --Justanother15:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Re-edited to make a more value-neutral statement of fact 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If that article is being used to forward unbalanced propaganda then it needs some serious looking at too, and I thank you for alerting me to these. --Justanother15:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Let us stop the back and forth and allow uninvolved RFC commentary below to take place. Thanks. Smee15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Slow down, please. Let's see what others have to say. If this present article is going to exist to solely promote one minority POV then I do not believe that it will stand review. A better apporach is needed. --Justanother16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
"Referred" implies that the groups are currently still on reports maintained by governments, and does not specify any timeframe. Something needs to be added so that it is clear hat a)The governments in question may no longer be listing the group (or any groups) and b)That the reports may be several years old, and that no new ones have been produced since with lists of groups consider as "cults". The title is misleading at the moment.Sfacets 02:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, the title was virtually verbatim from the subsection heading at List of groups referred to as cults, which had been stable by consensus for a long time. And the word "referred" is past tense. This specifically means that all mentions refer to historical reports. This is why the year is noted in the subsection heading for each report as well... Smee03:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Well it's ambiguous, isn't it? - It could be taken to mean "are referred" or "were referred" - in any case, misleading. By prefixing something like "have been" the meaning is cleared. Sfacets 03:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Denoting the date of the report itself takes care of that one. You will note that I added were cited in past government reports , to the intro... Smee03:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Yes, that is a fair point, however the title does lend a lot in the interpretation of the article - since it is the first thing a visitor reads, everything he/she reads after is "tainted" (for lack of a better word) by this. Perhaps we could add the year(s) that the reports were issued next to the countries in which they were produced? (eg. Belgium (1997), (2005) ) to even things out? Sfacets 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The year is already listed in the sub-subsection, below the countries. There will be additions of multiple years/reports under each country, where groups are referred to as cults, so it does not make sense to put the year one step higher up. Smee03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
My two pence:
(1) I see nothing POV inherent in the concept of this article in principle, it reports on a notable topic, particularly in the context of the 'cults' series (which I would prefer to call 'cult controversy', but that is another issue).
(2) I fail to see any point in making a list of groups referred to as 'religions' in government reports, I doubt that is a noteworthy topic deserving creation of an entirely new article. I am however open to persuasion on this point.
(3) Any POV concerns about the selective presentation of content in this article can easily be addressed by reasonably adding new content that provides the context. I don't think we need to be in the business of censorship.
(4) As for the title itself, I think there is some validity to the argument that it uses weasel words creating an initial impression that it contains the current position of governments. But one has to actually read the page to see the groups that are listed, and the argument that the title somehow brainwashes people into disregarding what the article actually says seems frankly a bit anti-cultist to me (no offence, only pun intended) :). In sum, I think it is a matter that could merit further discussion, but it should not be an obstacle to the continued existence and further population of this page.
I like the debate I see above. Firstly, since Having been to Talk:List of groups referred to as cults I realize that I have nothing to say, and that the editors of that page must be relied upon to manage this page as well (this I do not see currently outside of a couple). It seems that if you do not like the content of the page, there is very little that will ever be done about it. I am not sure how I like these pages. On that talk page I am at once convinced by both sides and neither. I suggest those who are new to the page leave it to those who have been here for its life.—Red Baron19:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
(Response to Red Baron by previously involved editor) "I am at once convinced by both sides and neither." Well, you sound like a centrist editor that is needed in the cult topics. There are more things that can be changed than are obvious on the surface, but it involves learning a lot of Wikipedia guides, topic debate history, and for achieving proposals consensus, memorizing which editors hold which POVs.
Despite the similar topic, List of groups referred to as cults in government reports (LOGRTACIGR) must be managed differently than List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC). The principal reason is that LOGRTAC has a set of consensed listing rules, and so far, LOGRTACIGR does not. For example, Rosicrucians currently listed at LOGRTACIGR are not listable at LOGRTAC because they were founded before 1920 (LOGRTAC rule #4).
LOGRTAC rules resulted from years of debates and compromises following frequent edit and talk page attacks, including four AfDs. Government reports are by their official nature more immune to attacks due to anti-reporting POVs, but the current selective presentation of them without consensed presentation rules will surely result in new article attacks on LOGRTACIGR. Milo02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Quotation from source regarding Austria
Smeelgova,where in the article does it mention the list? Can't seem to find it. Sfacets 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking here on the talk page for clarification. Here is the necessary info:
The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government were small organizations with fewer than 100 members. Among the larger groups was the Church of Scientology, with between 5,000 and 6,000 members, and the Unification Church, with approximately 700 adherents throughout the country. Other groups found in the country included Divine Light Mission, Eckankar, Hare Krishna, the Holosophic community, the Osho movement, Sahaja Yoga, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, the Center for Experimental Society Formation, Fiat Lux, Universal Life, and The Family.
The source mentions nothing about a list being maintained (I could be wrong - can someone confirm?) if so it serves no purpose, and another source will have to be found. Does the U.S. report mention specifically that Austria had created a list? Sfacets 04:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government - this means that these groups were termed "sects" by the Austrian government. As to the other citation, I don't know. Smee04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Yes, but it doesn't specify if this was mentioned in a government report (see article title). Sfacets 04:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It does not mention which government report, but in order for the State Dept. report to refer to the fact that the Austrian government had termed certain groups as "sects", this must have been the case. At any rate, I am fine with the "commenting out" manner in which you have compromised on this in the article main space. Thanks for being amiable in the discussion by the way, your polite mannerisms and lack of personal attacks are most appreciated. Yours, Smee04:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
That is speculative at best, but I am willing to wait for other views on this - and amiable is my middle name ;) (no, not really, that would be weird) Sfacets 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I am fine if you are with the way you left it now, with that reference "commented out", for the time being at least... Smee07:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
That is fine with me as well at the moment, however for the sentence (and the section?) to stay another reference will have to be provided showing that there is a report about groups referred to as cults in Austria. Sfacets07:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, as I believe it was User:Jossi who had added this bit it would be interesting to hear his take before anything is removed. Additional citations are always good... Smee07:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
Congressional Research Service (1979) > U.S. (Mainly)
Living Waters was included in this list of links, but it linked to Living Waters Publications, the ministry of Ray Comfort, and the sister ministry of Way of the Master with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. The Living Waters referred to in this 1979 list was probably the group that later developed into the Branch Davidians. Ray Comfort and his Living Waters Publications did not move to the United States until 1989.Oboya12:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Does not seem to be a "government report", but a study from a researcher. I cannot find any information on this reporter, who commissioned the study, etc. Unless that information is forthcoming, that section may to be removed from this list. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)04:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Information on the researcher is provided on Wikisource. The Congressional Research Service is a service for the United States Congress, and the document is a matter of government record and thus in the public domain and a government-produced report. Smee13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
No Jossi, it is a Government Document, located in the Government Documents section of the library. It is published by the "Congressional Research Service", a division of the United States Congress. Just because it was written by a single researcher, does not mean it is not a "government report", which it most certainly is. Smee15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
No, no and no. This is factually inaccurate and extremely misleading.
(a) It is not a report
(b) It was not "published" by the CRS. It was printed by them.
(c) Thousands studies are conducted by researchers, but these doi not carry the imprimatur of a "government report"
(d) You are violating WP:V (factual inaccuracy) and WP:NOR (making this a "government report") when it is not
Please re-consider. You may have had good intentions with your work on this, but this study is most definitively not a government t report. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
From the Main Web site, for the Congressional Research Service: What is the Congressional Research service "The Congressional Research Service is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress." -- Notice it did not say, "..the public policy research arm of Charles H. Whittier.", but rather, of the United States Congress... Smee15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
And this:
See : The Congressional Research Service is where Members of Congress turn for the nonpartisan research, analysis, and information they need to make informed decisions on behalf of the American people. CRS employs a highly educated professional staff who are hired, retained, and promoted on the basis of merit and accomplishment. We welcome and encourage minorities, women, and persons with disabilities to apply. Clearly not people that create "government reports" [1]≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- CRS Annotated Constitution -- "The content of the CRS Annotated Constitution was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) at the Library of Congress, and published electronically in plaintext and PDF by the Government Printing Office." Smee15:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Thus, it is a report, and published by an agency of the United States Federal Government. Fits most perfectly. Smee15:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
No, absolutely not. Just read this, would you? http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html#about. The material they produce are not government reports. They are studies asked by Congressman and not "government reports". Did you find out who' asked that study to be performed? name of congress,man that asked for it? ≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Who requested it is irrelevant. The President, Congressmen, and Senators all can request reports, and once published by individual Federal government agencies, become reports of the government. It is a "report", and I have established above that is is most certainly published by the United States Federal Government. It is thus a report of the United States Government. Smee16:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Your usage of duplicate tags is unnecessary and is undue weight/pushing an issue. Choose one location for your back-to-back tags please. Smee16:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Request for Comment -- Congressional Research Service
The report in question is: Whittier, Charles H., The Cultic Phenomena: New and Emerging Religious Movements in America, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Report No. 79-24 GOV., January 24, 1979. As per the government Web site, What is the Congressional Research Service, the very first sentence states: "The Congressional Research Service is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress." Therefore, the Congressional Research Service is an official branch of the United States Congress. According to CRS Annotated Constitution, "The content of the CRS Annotated Constitution was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) at the Library of Congress, and published electronically in plaintext and PDF by the Government Printing Office." Therefore, the reports are published by the Government Printing Office, and thus are reports published by the United States Federal Government, in the public domain, and fit the term "Government reports". Smee16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Do you deny that it was published by the United States Federal Government?
And yet there is also the undeniable language: "legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress", and "public policy research arm of the United States Congress". Sounds like government report classification to me... Smee16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Referred to as "report" - [2] - "Provides access to Congressional Research Service Reports that are in the public domain."
Listed under "Other Sources of Federal Government Information" - [3]
Simple searches will show this, for example: Government Documents on the Web, here, listed under "Government Documents" (Lists 222 reports in the public domain).
Summarizing
The Congressional Research Service produces reports as requested by Congress.
Thank you, Anynobody, you seem to have succinctly and correctly summarized the key issue at hand here in an easy-to-understand manner. Smee04:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
Comment by Jossi
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis. In fiscal year 2003, CRS had a budget of $86,386,812 funded mostly by taxpayer dollars.1 CRS reports are not made directly available to members of the public. Instead, the public must request individual reports from their Senators and Representatives in Congress, or purchase them from private vendors such as Penny Hill Press.2 A limited number of reports have been made freely available on the web by federal agencies, Members of Congress, educational institutions, and nongovernmental organizations. (from Congressional Research Service).
These reports are not placed in the public domain as Smee argues. The OpenCRS a non-related entity, requires that a member of the public makes a request for the document and send it to OpenCRS so that these can be available to others. See OpenCRS website: American taxpayers spend over $100 million a year to fund the Congressional Research Service, a "think tank" that provides reports to members of Congress on a variety of topics relevant to current political events. (My highlight)
The Congressional Research Service is where Members of Congress turn for the nonpartisan research, analysis, and information they need to make informed decisions on behalf of the American people. [4]
Also note that the CRS, is part of the Library of Congress. They produce a tonne of material each year, but these cannot be called "government reports". See [5]
Summarizing
the CRS, as a think thank, does not produce government reports, but studies requested by a member of Congress on a confidential basis. They serviced 906,445 requests in 2005, of which 2,287 were "custom writings" according to their annual report.
These reports do not carry the imprimatur of a "government report" as expected in this article. This is highly misleading, and factually inaccurate.
These reports are for the government (in this case the US Congress) and not of the government.
The material for that report could be used on other related articles, but not on one that is dedicated to government reports.
Regarding User:Anynobody's comment: All what he wrote is correct, with the exception of "since the reports are by/for the Legislative branch of the United States federal government". The correct statement is, by ALL evidence provided that these are private reports for the legislative branch and not by the legislative branch. Subtle, but essential distinction. Court documents presented at Supreme Court rulings are not government reports. Reports prepared for the FBI are not government reports. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I go off topic but this is a weird article. The article is inherently POV with "anti-cultists" using it to smear groups with a very broad brush. The only standard for inclusion here and painting some group as a cult is that it was ever named that ANYWHERE in ANY report by ANY government? Ridiculous. So the "anti-cultists" get to cherry-pick 25-year-old reports that name groups as cults while ignoring more recent reports from the self-same government that name the self-same group as a religion or as an NRM. What a crock. Sorry for the bluntness but this article is pretty blunt soapboxing which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. --Justanother21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As someone that has some personal involvement with government reports let me make the point that a report commissioned by a government is not a government report unless the report is republished and made available as a government publication by the government. If a report commissioned by the government is not republished and made available by the commissioning government then it is not a "government report", it is simply the report of the contractor that prepared it. I can expand on that but that is the basic idea. The fact that the contractor's report is available as a matter of public record does not make it a "government report" either. The report must be republished under the imprint of the commissioning government. Did I make my point clearly? --Justanother14:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The document in question seems to be an internal report prepared for the government by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Unless republished for distribution outside the government it does not have the strength nor RS status of a "government report" for the purposes of this article. --Justanother16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Previously uninvolved editors
Comment from Lsi john
The CSR, from their own website, is a private research office, used by Congress for analysys. The CSR is not tasked with producing, publishing or releasing official government reports. Their work is printed, for distribution to Congress, not as Official Government Reports.
"CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis"
Their function is to provide a private and confidential and unbiased analysys to Congress. There is no evidence that they are charged with producing official government findings or official government reports. Their work would more accurately be classified as private internal memos to Congress.
Being printed by an arm of the US Government, and having a US Government document number, might make it a US Government Document, but certainly not an official US Government Report.
I agree with Jossi, that the material produced by the CSR, having been the work product of experts, could be used under the rules of WP:RS but not under the classification of an Official Government Report.
Summarizing
The CSR is a private research arm for the US Congress. It is not tasked with producing official Government Reports.
In the absence of specific wording in their charter, or specific wording in a document they produce, which declares the document to be an Official Governemt Report, and without appropriate seals and embossings which accompany Official Government Reports, we must conclude that the work product of the CSR is not Official Government Reports.
The reference material meets the standard for WP:RS, but does not pass the test for Government Reports.
CRS as everyone seems to understand, prepares reports for Congress as part of the Library of Congress. Since the reports are by/for the Legislative branch of the United States federal government, they are government reports. Documents by/for/from the Supreme Court are also government reports but are more often called court documents. Reports by/for/from the FBI, a division of the Executive branch, are also government reports.
Summary
CRS is part of the Library of Congress. The LOC is an agency of Congress, which is part of the government
The point is the the word "government" applies to any report from/for any of the three branches of government. openCRS looks like a private group trying to publish CRS reports it receives from the public who have in turn gotten them from their congressional representative(s).
Indeed, the word "government" might apply to any report/document/memo/phonecall by any of the three branches. But that was not the question. The question was does the word "report" always apply to anything printed by any of them, and more specifically by the private research arms of any of them? For me, I think not. Reports are official findings, printed, signed, sealed (read: imprimatur ) and then released as a report.
The CSR is a private research arm of Congress. Congress can use the information from the CSR and release a Congressional Government Report. But the research provided by the CSR is not a government-report in and of itself. Lsi john14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Answer to Lsi john
If it is funded by taxes, as it says, it can not be private. By your logic you are saying the NSA is a private research arm of the Department of Defense, or that JPL is a private research division of NASA. There is no such thing as "private" in the US government. Anynobody23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Problems
I see what could be a very serious problem with this article/list. (well one of several).
The opening sentence (which should identfiy/specify/contain/state the article's primary focus):
"Since 1978, some governments have compiled lists of groups that they have termed either cults, doomsday cults, or sects - in order to focus study on those groups within their respective countries."
From a reader's perspective, anything listed in this group, cannot simply be from any government report that mentions something as a cult, but must come from a report specifically about cults and specifically about targeting a cult for observation or study.
Based on that wording, if any incidental mention citations are used for including a group in this list, they would be in violation of the inclusion criteria. This would very likely seriously mislead the reader into believing that a group was specifically targeted for study when it wasn't.
Another issue is that this list is POV. Yes yes it uses WP:RS material. But the list itself is potentially POV. Unless there is a strict standard applied to define cult, then it an opinion which gets an organization on this list. Given that, there would need to be an opportunity for opposing views. However, the very nature and definition of the list excludes the possibility for opposing views.
A list of facts cannot be disputed and so a case could be made for List of former Presidents of the United States. A man either was or was not a President of the USA. There is no opposing view.
A list of opinions seems to beg for the opportunity to present opposing views in order to offer a neutral article to the readers.
(ed conf) You say This would very likely seriously mislead the reader into believing that a group was specifically targeted for study when it wasn't.. That is indeed worrisome and in violation of WP content policies. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)07:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Comparing a group to a man seems like a good way to look at the situation, until one realizes that groups and men can have very different lifespans and traits. A group that was a terrorist organization can become legitimate (if you don't believe me read up on the history of Israel from 1900-1948, or see Fatah) because as it's leadership changes people expect it's behavior will too. Individuals on the other hand don't have this benefit when changing their ways because their past is all one has to predict their future behavior.
I don't know much about football (either US or global meanings) but this principle is the same for players and teams, I've never heard football fans compare Emmit Smith to the Denver Broncos. This is an apples and apple trees comparison. Anynobody07:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not follow your argument. Who is speaking of people? Nevertheless, our content policies apply to people, events, things, groups and anything in between. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)07:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
In context, I was saying that a list of presidents is a list of factual entries. This article/list is not a list of factual entries but rather a factual list of cited references. That is a very significant distinction. The implication from the first paragraph is that this list is a list of cults that are being watched by the government. That implies that the groups are cults, and yet there is nothing in the article criteria that requires them to be cults, only that they be referred to as cults.
And, more significantly, my point was, there is nothing in the requirements which require that the groups were listed for the specific intention to be watched, which is what is implied in the first paragraph.
"Since 1978, some governments have compiled lists of groups that they have termed either cults, doomsday cults, or sects - in order to focus study on those groups within their respective countries. Groups listed below were cited in past government reports from Austria,[1] Belgium,[2] Canada,[3] France[4](in 1995), Germany,[5] and the United States.[6]"
Good catch, John. That is an excellent example of original research. This is a "list" and the lead should be simply stating the criteria for inclusion, and nothing more. Something along the lines of This lists include groups that have been referred to as cults in official government reports. Nothing more. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, would this also include the supplemental verbiage around each report? This is a list of groups, not a list of reports. Certainly citing the reports would be in order, but it would seem that describing the reports is not appropriate in a list. It seems that those reports should be in their own articles. Lsi john16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that some neutral statements about the commission that prepared the report, date, country, etc. would be useful to readers; and if there is a main article on that specific report, wikilink to it, of course using the {{Main}} template. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this an example of neutral statements about ... a report?
"In May 2005 the then Prime Minister of France, in a circulaire (which stressed that the government must exercise vigilance in continuing the fight against the cult-phenomenon), said that the list of movements attached to the Parliamentary Report of 1995 had become less pertinent, based on the observation that many small groups had formed: scattered, more mobile, and less-easily identifiable, and that labeling the groups as "sects" went against the respect for public freedoms and Laïcité (separation of Church and State). The Prime Minister asked his civil servants to update a number of ministerial instructions issued by previous commissions, to apply criteria set in consultation with the Interministerial Commission for Monitoring and Combating Cultic Deviances (MIVILUDES), and to avoid falling back on lists of groups for the identification of cultic deviances.[16]"
This also appears to be commentary on history, not brief neutral statement about a report:
"According to the report, the mass murder/suicide of members of the Peoples Temple group at Jonestown in 1978 awoke the United States government to the need to study cults and new religious movements.[6] The report stated that the "tragic events in Guyana" had "focused attention on the larger phenomenon of religious cults in American life" - their nature, extent, and significance.[6]"
It can be just re-written to stay close to the source and not interpret the source. In any case, that report is disputed as being a "government report". ≈ jossi ≈(talk)16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a "government report"
We cannot call a report written by a researcher employed by the LOC a "Government report", because simply it is not. Such report represents the opinion of the researcher and not of the government, and it will be highly misleading to our readers, as it is incompatible with the title of this article. On the other hand the report "S. Rpt. 109-322 – Hurricane Katrina" by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, headed by Congresswoman Susan M. Collins, Maine, signed by Ted Stevens, Alaska; Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut; Norm Coleman, Minnesota and tens more, is a goverment report.
Any official report of the Government will be placed on the public domain, will have the seal of the specific branch of government that issued the report, and will be signed by government officials. People can an find such reports in communication arms such as the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), the USC United States Code, the Congressional Record, and others. A study by a researcher employed by the LOC is a private report for a member of Congress (and only available if you ask the Congressman to have a copy), and is not a government report.
As said in previous comments, this material may be used in other related articles as it is a verifiable source, but cannot be used in this article for the reasons expressed.
So, what we have here is a mistake, I assume made in good faith. This is not an issue of editors' opinion, but a fact. I am placing an {{expert}} tag to attract an expert on the subject that may explain this better than me.
I'm sorry but you are mistaken as to the nature of what counts as "government" property. (When I say property I mean reports, papers, documents, photos, ANYTHING created by or for the US federal government.)
≈ jossi ≈(talk) says that a report written by a researcher employed by the Library of Congress is not government property because "...simply it is not." He further says Such report represents the opinion of the researcher and not of the government....
This is inaccurate because when a government employee writes something for his/her job (even if it is their opinion on something) it becomes property of the US government.
This does not mean the report is the end of the subject at hand, there may be conflicting governmental reports on the subject, but because they all came from (or were written for) government employees they are government reports.
≈ jossi ≈(talk) as a sysop I assume you understand that pictures taken in the course of a government employee's job are automatically public domain, the principle is the same for non or de-classified materials.
It's very simple: If it comes from the government, it's a government publication. CAIB Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Even if it's found on a non-government site, as long as it was released by the governemnt it is still a gov't document: PDB August 2001 Bin Ladin Determined To Strike US, Presidential Daily Briefing. Anynobody23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you know what a straw man argument is? You are asserting an argument that I have not made. Of course that the document in question is the property of the Government. That is not disputed. What is disputed is to describe this document as a "Government report" by means on including it in this article. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comment about public domain, you are mistaken in this specific case. Reports created by the CRS are not placed in the public domain for the simple reason that these are private reports. They only get to see the light of day, when a citizen asks his/her Congressman for a copy. As with all material created by a Government agency that is not classified, these dosuments can be placed in the public domain (as openCRS does). You may need to do some research into this, so you may understand the issue better. You can start here: Congressional_Research_Service that says (my highlight) CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I've misunderstood what you think a "government document" is and isn't,
(ed conf) We are discussingthis specific case: A report written by a Charles H. Whittier, an employee of the Library of Congress. That "report" is not a "government report". It is a document written for a Congressman/Congresswoman, for their information so that they can do their jobs as legislators. Calling it a "government report" in the context of this article, and alongside official reports from governmental commissions of the governments of France, Austria and Belgium, if factually inaccurate and misleading ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
English is not my first language, but I have been fluent in English since the late eighties. I am also fluent in Spanish and Hebrew, and can have a colloquial conversation in Italian and French. Language is not the issue here, understanding is. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ, you seem to equate "private" with "classified", they are not the same thing. A private company is one that uses funds from investors or customers to operate. A classified document/report whatever is a product of the US government which for security reasons is not available to the general public at this time. Anynobody06:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, slight of hand by changing the wording isn't going to fly. Government Report is a very specific term with a very specific meaning. We are not talking about Government Documents we are talking about Government Reports, and my primary language is English.
While some of the following may apply to a Government Report, the term is not interchangable with the following:
government document
public domain
generic reports that happened to somehow pass near the government
government property
documents printed by a government facility
A "Government Report" is a "Government Document".. BUT a "Government Document" is not necessarily a "Government Report".
You continue to start with valid, but unrelated, statements and then switch terminology mid-stream and arrive at a false and unsupported conclusion.
Lsi john23:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john it's not slight of hand, lol I'm too clumsy both with words and in real life to pull anything like that off. I think you and ≈ jossi ≈(talk) think if something comes from the government it reflects the opinion of the entire US government which is inaccurate, see my post below for more. Anynobody06:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
As products of the Federal government reports prepared by the Congressional Research Service are in the public domain. While they cannot be accessed directly by the public through the internet many reports have nevertheless been posted on the internet through the cooperation of members of Congress. Open CRS serves as a portal to posted reports.
Notice the language used: "reports", and "products of the Federal government", and "in the public domain" (just because they are not freely available on-line, does not mean that for copyright purposes they are not in the public domain...
Smee06:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
Thank you, Smee :) ≈ jossi ≈(talk) this is what I have been saying all along, it isn't a straw man argument the issue is ownership. Government publications of any kind are definitely WP:RS but that doesn't guarantee they are right OR the view of the entire government. Like I've been saying, the us government has three heads and three voices (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial). Anynobody06:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I should point out that that particular DIFF and blockquote information from User:Fred Bauder is from July 2, 2005, and is thus wholly independent of this discussion. Thus, reports from the Congressional Research Service article have stated to the reader as such that they are "reports", and "products of the Federal Government", and "public domain", since that time, and the article has remained in effect and VERY stable during that time period... Smee06:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
Straw man? No one is disputing that the report was written by the CRS and that is a "report". What is being disputed is to place that report, which is not an official report of the US Government, alongside reports from official government commissions in other countries. This is not only disingenuous, but factually inaccurate and misleading. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)14:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You two are using "Government Reports" in a very casual way and interchanging it with "government documents". Anobody said it himself "John I'm too clumsy with words", when he was explaining why he wasn't intentionally using slight of hand with words. But the fact is, that is exactly what you are both doing, whether intentionally or unintentionally. You are showing that Government Documents are Public Domain, which is true, and then you switch over to the wording Government Reports, which are not the same thing. Please refer to my explanation above.
The term "Government Reports" is a proper noun. It identifies something very specific and very official. It identifes a report which was produced by the government and for the express purpose of releasing an opinion of the government. A Government Report will be clearly identified as such by its imprintaur of the US Government.
The single word report can be interchanged with the single word document but Government Report is a linked two word combination which has a specific meaning. You cannot separate those two words at-will and replace them with other terms.
If you want to make your argument, find sources which use the specific wording "Government Report".
Mmmm... Your last sentence above is interesting, John, and has the potential to extricate us from this quagmire. If we frame the dispute around the title of the article, all the content in the article can remain and we could all walk away happy and focus our energies on other articles that need our attention. I propose to rename this article as List of groups referred to as cults in government documents, keep all the content and remove the dispute tags. Smee? Anynobody? Justanother? What say you? ≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Provided a very clear disclaimer is added, which states that "The documents used do NOT necessarily reflect the views of the governments and are not necessarily published on behalf of the governments."
Given all the confusion about what a Government Report is and is not, it needs to be very clear that government documents do not necessarily contain the opinion of any government. I am concerned that this list was intended to be used to imply that governments had sanctioned the entries listed here. While government documents would satisfy the requirements and the current debate, it will raise another one (from me in particular) about the misleading nature of the title.
If Smee and Anynobody were confused about what a Government Report is and is not, then it is equally likely that people will assume 'government documents' imply decisions or opinions of a government. They both have been saying that government documents are Government Reports. Based on this, it is reasonable to assume other readers will also make this mistake.
Remember the original wording on the fist paragraph?
"Since 1978, some governments have compiled lists of groups that they have termed either cults, doomsday cults, or sects - in order to focus study on those groups within their respective countries. Groups listed below were cited in past government reports from Austria,[1] Belgium,[2] Canada,[3] France[4](in 1995), Germany,[5] and the United States.[6]"
This wording indicates that the governments have sanctioned these documents/reports. While I agree that this wording was improper in the article... it does go to establish what the article was supposed to represent. "Official government opinion"... which would not necessarily be accurate in insignificant "government documents".
Wiki has a responsibility to be un-ambiguous.
Under the title government documents, technically any email from any government employee, could be classified as a government document and thus be used to identify cults. This would be very misleading, when used next to an Official Government Report which carries the weight and opinion of a government.
I may have thought of how we can settle this, could anyone who says CRS reports are not government reports please give an example of a report (doesn't have to be about this subject just what you think of when you think of a government report; the Kennedy assassination, the mob, the moon landing, anything).
(Given that I have already researched and posted several links, I don't think this is an unreasonable request) Anynobody01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
When a "Government report" is written, it never speaks for all three branches of the federal government because no one agency represents all three branches. I'm not asking you to take my word for it, see for yourself:
Thank you for participating, the report you've cited is how the Executive branch of the US federal government sees it's Achievements in Ozone protection. The Environmental Protection Agency is a quasi-independent agency under the aforementioned branch of the government which like the CIA reports to the President of the United States. [6]
It doesn't speak for the Congress or Supreme court. (Remember that part of civics, included lessons about checks and balances which make sure one branch doesn't speak for the whole government). Anynobody05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
While the civics lessons are getting a bit sophomoric, I still do not get why you are making this point. Did someone say that a gov't report "must speak for the entire gov't"? In the US system, most reports are issued by agencies under the control of the Executive Branch. The EPA report would have needed the approval of the EPA Administrator and would likely have been reviewed by White House staff and carries the tacit approval of the President. As far as Congress is concerned, let me show you what a real Congressional Report looks like - United States Congressional investigation of the Unification Church. While it may not be notable, it is a real "government report". The "report" we are discussing here is internal to the government and NOT released under the authority of the Congress; it is simply available to the public as a matter of public record. --Justanother06:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Justanother I honestly thought you'd be able to make the connection that if a report from a federal agency under the executive branch is a government report, why isn't the report in question: Whittier, Charles H., The Cultic Phenomena: New and Emerging Religious Movements in America, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Report No. 79-24 GOV., January 24, 1979.
It was created by an employee of the federal government, using government research, just like the EPA report only on a different subject obviously.
It's intended purpose is to report on cults, for the Congress (Back to civics, part of the us federal government)
As products of the Federal government reports prepared by the Congressional Research Service are in the public domain. While they cannot be accessed directly by the public through the internet many reports have nevertheless been posted on the internet through the cooperation of members of Congress. Open CRS serves as a portal to posted reports.
Especially when we take into account that that comment was made way back in July 2005... Smee09:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
You are misreading Fred's sentence: Allow me to clarify the grammar and syntax:
As products of the Federal Government, "reports" prepared by the CRS are public domain. They are not, however "Government Reports".
At this point, y'all either get it, or you don't. I'm inclined to suspect you're having sport and enjoying watching people dance around repeating themselves. Lsi john23:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Chronological order
Information should be contained on the list in chronological order, thus, the French "circulaire" should be in its own subsection in the proper chronological place. Smee01:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
Smee, you have not looked above at the conversation already about this. Please participate before you revert. thanks. Lsi john01:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There was no prior conversation about this particular issue. If so, please point me to it. Smee01:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
It's in the section on Problems. And please have a look at WP:BRD regarding your revert and then post justification. Once you are reverted, it is your responsibility to discuss, not simply make a claim and re-revert. Thanks. Lsi john01:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hrm, in light of the discussion above, perhaps we should remove as much extraneous info as possible, and simply keep the purpose of this article to be a list format, with very short descriptive sections... Smee01:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
This, [7], was a very minor formatting edit, which was immediately reverted by User:Lsi john. Please, give it a chance and tell us what you don't like about it on the talk page. Smee01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
It was reverted becasue it was clearly the first step in an attempt to circumvent being reverted. This is a list of groups, it is not a chronology of reports. This was discussed above at least indirectly. The tone of the conversation, which you are welcome to participate in, was that each report deserved a brief NPOV description. This is not a list of Government Reports (which could reasonably have a chronology), this is a list of groups. The reports are incidental and only relevant because they listed the groups. No significant information, or findings, from those reports should be listed here as that would not be in keeping with a WP:LIST and specifically not with the title of this list. Lsi john02:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It is a list of groups referred to in government reports, and structured by Country first alphabetically and then by chronology within each subsection. This is logical and self-explanatory. Smee02:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
Having a long list first and only then the fact that the list is no longer used, is not acceptable for obvious reasons. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
"Subsequent French parliamentary commissions on cults reported on specific aspects of cult activity in 1999 and in 2006[citation needed]. "
Does anyone know where to look for more information and citations on this interesting tidbit of info? Smee08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
You could try google language tools to translate what you are looking for into/from French to English and search the appropriate language (google will auto-translate French to English in the results). Anynobody09:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Red links
The number of red wikilinks in these lists makes them terrible eyesores and imply bad editing (when I am on an article or website with possibly more dead links than live ones I find it frustrating.) I'm willing to take them out (replaced with standard text, not talking about deliting items from the lists)but want to make sure nobody has done this on purpose for some reason I'm unaware of. Anynobody09:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we should leave the red links in place, this is standard practice and many if not most of these groups are notable enough and enough reputable secondary sourced citations can be found to create articles of their own on them at some point soon... Smee09:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
I'm not saying articles can not be made for them either, as they are created wikilinks can be added in place of the standard text. The red links are a bit of a tease. (Seriously, just scroll from the top of the page to the bottom to see the general aesthetic of the article.) The problem is I think we may be overlinking. I'm not advocating the removal of all red links, but there must be room to trim them down and balance the guidelines. Anynobody09:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I could be agreeable to that. Certainly as they are created articles could be wikilinked, you are correct there... Smee09:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
Of the red links, which articles do you plan to write in the near future? I'll make the other red links into standard text. Anynobody21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I am not sure yet, haven't looked into which ones have the best potential for ease of finding reputable secondary sourced citations... Smee22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
It's not an emergency, we should wait for the below situation to be resolved before taking action anyway. (I just like planning ahead) Anynobody21:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Either way, sounds good. Just more inspiration impetus to search for those reputable secondary sourced citations for which to create new articles... Smee21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
This is simple - just look at their mission
Guys, if you read and understand the mission of CRS you will understand that you are misusing the report and that there is not any way that that report can represent the views of any branch of the US government:
"Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress."[8] (emphasis added)
I can guarantee you that the Director, Mr. Daniel P. Mulhollan, would consider it unthinkable that you would suggest that his work "represents the views of Congress or the US government". It is implicit throughout their website and their annual report that they work for Congress and that their reports are for Congress. [9] Their reports would have to be re-released as official Congressional Reports or incorporated into such to carry the weight of the government. --Justanother23:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Government Accountability Office writes reports on government efficiany for Congress and various federal agencies, more about it:[10]. Since the reports are for the government, again your logic dictates this to be something else:d07573.pdf - Food Stamp Program: Use of Alternative Methods to Apply for and Maintain Benefits Could Be Enhanced by Additional Evaluation and Information on Promising Practices GAO-07-573, May 3, 2007
Anynobody01:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Just because it is a report written by someone in the government does not make it a Government Report. How many times does this need to be spelled out? Government Reports are a very special type/category of report, they are not plain old simple every day ordinary reports. Lsi john01:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
AN, FOIA is irrelevant. In many government agencies, e-mails are a matter of public record and subject to FOIA.[11] Does that make those e-mails representative of government opinion? That FOIA argument is specious so let's please not use it anymore. Your other argument is worthy of discussion. I looked at the ammo report and I say that, again, that is not a Government Report if by such, you mean a report that would be fully supported by the DoD and by extension, the President of the United States. You would be misusing the ammo report if you used it in that manner, just as you are misusing the cult report. --Justanother01:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The ammo reference clearly states on the front page that it is a GUIDE. And, it is a document, by definition of the word document. It is not a Government Report. It is simply a document printed by the government which identifies itself as a GUIDE. It is a document printed by the Department of Defense, which makes it a Defense Department Document, but not a Government Report. Scan that Document and you will not find the word REPORT. You can go round an round with the word games forever, until you decide finally to read our replies. Lsi john
In accord with Anynobody's request for third opinions (good idea), I've formatted a couple of sections for both previously uninvolved WP:3O editors, as well as previously involved returning editors like myself. Milo
In a 02:26, 7 May 2007 edit summary Anynobody wrote: I've asked for a WP:3O on the CRS issue If you are a previously uninvolved editor please post here, otherwise post in the next section
No it is not. A "Government Report" is a report that has the imprimatur of the government, by means of issuance by an official commission of such government. There are literally millions of documents prepared by contractors, internal think-tanks, and other governmental services such as the CRS (just read trhe abundant references above on the mission, aims and modus operandi of the CSR), and these cannot and should not be referred to as "Government reports", as it is misleading and factually inaccurate. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)03:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it boils down to ..
What is the specific and technical definition of a government report?
Who can write government reports?
What branches of government can write/issue government reports?
At what point does a general report become re-born into a Government Report?
Can a report be a government report without the signatures of the head(s) of the branch of government that it represents?
Is an agency authorized to write government reports on behalf of the branch of goverment under which it operates?
Is a member of a private research arm, of an agency, of a branch of the goverment authorized to write an official government report, on behalf of the branch for which it is doing private and confidencial research?
And I happen to agree with Jossi. Congressional reports are a special class of Government Reports. But CRS reports are neither Congressional Reports, nor Goverment Reports.
Anynobody, I have given you my opinion, numerous times. If you believe I am incorrect, all you have to do is show me a citation which clearly establishes it. Lsi john03:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I was editing LOGRTAC when the Government Reports section was named at LOGRTAC. It seemed so obvious that I didn't give this definitional issue a thought. I assumed that anything a government uttered in multiple copies, was a "report". Still, I can understand the need for distinguishing different kinds of government utterances.
I'm fond of using WP:AVOID in technical disputes. That way it's not necessary to do all the parsing suggested by Lsi john. If this is really just about precise language, it seems to me that a title rename/move to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents might inclusively resolve the dispute. Milo04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I can get behind that assertion, the source is the government which to me seems to be the important factor. Anynobody04:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Milo, then scroll up to that part of the discussion. Government documents would include email and telephone notes. Hardly a good criteria for identifying cults for exorcizing. Lsi john05:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"Under the title government documents, technically any email from any government employee, could be classified as a government document" That doesn't sound rhetorically correct to me (except when a document is sent by email). I would call email, letters, memos, and notes "government messages", and part of a larger category along with documents (including reports and research) called "government communications".
Email, letters, memos, and notes are normally not fact-checked. Things that aren't fact-checked aren't reliable sources. Documents are usually some kind of research — "report" or not — so they are presumed fact-checked prior to distribution. I don't see a problem; am I missing something? Milo07:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Milo, you just identified my problem with using 'government documents':
"I would call email, letters, memos, and notes "government messages", and part of a larger category along with documents (including reports and research) called "government communications" -Milo
If there is not a true, specific and concise definition for 'government document', then it doesn't matter what you and I would call email. We will have exactly the same challenge with 'government documents'.. exactly what is the definition of a 'government document'. If you can provide a citation which clearly defines the term, then I am willing to read the definition and consider it. Until then, its what you think it is versus what I think it is versus what Jossi and Anynobody think it is, and we'll have exactly the same debate about the next item to be included... Is this really a government document? .. Lets solve the problem now.. not just change the name to something else in order to get past this question and only put off the problem until later. Lsi john17:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
We closely cross-posted. See my 17:23, 7 May 2007 post below beginning with "imply that any". Using WP:AVOID, the issue of need for an exact definition for "government documents" goes away after addressing your real concern which is misusing unreliable primary sources. Milo17:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It's important to remember Lsi john, we're not talking about an e-mail or a note in this case. We can cross the "is an e-mail an official government document" bridge when/if we come to it. For now, lets just stick with reports. (Especially since the document itself and the government refer to it as a report) Anynobody07:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It's wise to think ahead to avoid having the list depopulated if someone finds a flaw in consensus reasoning. But unless I've missed something, email, letters, memos, and notes are not an issue. If so, that bridge doesn't need to be crossed. Milo07:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, however in my discussions with Lsi john he has tried to imply that any communication is an official document even a theoretical e-mail between an employee and their friend about non government topics, if this report is one. Anynobody07:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"imply that any communication is an official document even a theoretical e-mail" I've followed the news of many USA government scandals. Based on that news coverage, I would write that emails (and letters, memos, and notes) are usually internal government messages not intended for the public, and are therefore not fact-checked. However, they do become "government documents" when their status changes due to public disclosure via the USA Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or subpoena by courts or Congress. Even when these become "government documents" due to disclosure, they remain primary sources, since they have not been subject to fact-checking reliable secondary source analysis.
In Wikipedia, primary sources can only be used when someone without special knowledge can verify descriptive claims based on them.
For example, a hypothetical government email reads, 'Charles Authur of the Guardian thinks that Wikipedia is a cult more serious than a fancult, and I think that Wikipedia is a dangerous cult. Please investigate and create a formal congressional research document on the potential for Jimbo to become Jimbo Jones. Be aware that the research document could be released by members of Congress as an official government report.
Even if this email was turned into a "government document" by Congressional member release, as a primary source all that it would prove is that some government employee wanted Jimbo investigated. The assertion that 'Wikipedia is a dangerous cult' has not been reliably fact-checked, so I would not create a link to it in this LOGRTACIGR/LOGRTACIGD article, even though it is a government document. (But I might link to it in an article on investigating cults.)
On the other hand, if the requested investigation document concluded that 'Wikipedia is a cult overflowing with mind-controlled "Wikipeds" unquestioningly doing Master Jimbo's bidding', then I would link to that here in LOGRTACIGR/LOGRTACIGD as a fact-checked reliable source government document. Milo17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The dispute is not about calling these "government documents". It is about calling these "Government reports". The proposal still on the table is to move this article to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents, or better still Groups referred to as cults in government documents as some of the documents in this article doe not contain "lists". The proposal includes the need to assert that these are official documents, but that do not necessarily reflect a government's position, unless the document was published on a official report by an official governmental commission such as the France one. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm in general agreement. I'd like to hear from others, especially Will Beback, on the impact of dropping "List of" from the title. Milo17:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I think dropping the word "Lists" from the title makes sense. I totally agree with you Milo, if it came from the government (and is not classified) it's public info. I was trying to point out to Lsi john that e-mails and such need to be used with common sense:
I'm not saying that an e-mail from a federal employee describing his attire is a citeable government document on men's fashion: Mike Brown's fashion e-mail as Katrina was happening. A NASA technician e-mailing his boss because he is worried foam may have struck the underside of the Columbia during ascent, is definitely a reliable government source.
By my logic, a government employee e-mailing a friend and talking about cults is not something to be cited. An agency of the Legislature writing a report for said body on the topic of cults is something to be cited. (You should understand part of citation is including when this was said, I'm not trying to imply that this is still a report the Congress uses as things may have changed since 1979. Anynobody 08:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Will Beback, whats your opinion? Cuz I think I might like it. But I'll pretend to be against it to confuse and misdirect anyone who might be for it but would vote against it if I came out in favor of it before they voted for it. Lsi john04:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If no one has any objections, I will move the article page myself. Smee 17:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC). COMMENT: -- In light of the discussion that has proceeded below, I think perhaps the current name of the article, List of groups referred to as cults in government reports, or perhaps more simply: Groups referred to as cults in government reports, is still appropriate. Especially since the title itself does not connotate anything other than reports produced by the Federal government. Smee05:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
(you just beat me to it, Smee. I was about to make the same proposal.. Let's give a couple of days to editors to raise objections if there are any, otherwise make the move then. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)17:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"The proposal includes the need to assert that these are official documents, but that do not necessarily reflect a government's position, unless the document was published on a official report by an official governmental commission such as the France one. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:30, 7 May 2007"
Thanks. Point being that now we want to use any government document that says "some have called XYZ a cult" to forward our Cult Fighter (cue music) POV-pushing agenda. Any document; unreleased documents, advisory documents, out-dated documents, discredited documents, refrigerator documents, letters to the degree that someone might consider the letter a "report", you name it. To the degree that this article has any validity at all it is about official reports released under government imprimatur. This point has been made before but needs to be made again here. And Smee, WP:POINT is about disruption and as you were told by an experienced admin; No, a sarcastic comment is not "disruption". --Justanother18:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
My analysis of this dispute was that it was superficially about definitions, but really about reliable sources. The refrigerator note is primary source, but not a reliable source.
There seem to be two basic kinds of fact-checked reliable sources, those which are formal government research such as CRS documents, and those documents which are accepted and released as official or policy at various departmental levels. In general, most official documents begin life as formal government research. Taking jossi's point about disclosure as to which are research documents, and which are released as official or policy documents would seem to address your concerns. Milo19:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I supported creation of this article with a partial duplication at LOGRTAC because there are groups mentioned in government sources that predate 1920 and so can't be listed at LOGRTAC. I believed then, and subsequent events have demonstrated, that this article needs to evolve on a different path than LOGRTAC.
"official reports released under government imprimatur" Things change. I too might have originally assessed that, but facts in evidence are that formal government research, which is reliable but not neccessarily official or policy, is referrable within Wikipedia, and also needs to also be considered in covering the subject. Milo03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Left. Please note that I did try to remove the above off-topic chatty thread but it was restored. Another is free to do so but please do not remove my original comment - that is how I chose to make my point. Thanks. --Justanother20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Slightly less left. Please note that this thread above should remain, and will be archived in due time. Please also note User:Jossi's statement below that the original sarcastic comments by User:Justanother were a violation of WP:POINT and disruptive. Smee21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
Opposed: (Per above). There is no specific definition for what a government document is and what it is not. By using the word government in the title, it carries the implication that the documents are official and carry a decision by or of or on behalf of a government. This would be very misleading, since any notes, memos, emails, faxes, or other correspondence between any two people, using government equipment, services or facilities, could be construed as a government document. If you wish to remove government from the title and simply say documents then I would agree. Lsi john19:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I looked up "government document" on the web. The most inclusive reliable source definition is:
"Any publication issued at government expense or published under the authority of a governmental body. Included are official papers that record the actions or deliberations of government (such as the Congressional Record), informational publications (like the many statistical compilations of the Bureau of the Census), and reports of research done under government contract. -- (library staff at Clemson University)"
This definition would include both formal research documents and documents accepted as official or policy by government decision makers. Both are fact-checked Wikipedia reliable sources.
"notes, memos, emails, faxes, or other correspondence between any two people, using government equipment, services or facilities, could be construed as a government document." If subpoenaed, yes, but they could not be referred-to within Wikipedia except as an unreliable primary source. Why is this a problem for you? Milo03:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I will not address Justanother's obvious WP:POINT. As for Lsi John's concern, I would argue that a proper notice on the article, explaining what is the common use of "government document" as different from "government report" could result in a factually accurate article. Please re-consider your objection in that light. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)19:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, you can ignore my joke and address my point. And also do us the favor of not signing on to this silly idea that sarcastic comments to make a point are somehow disruptive and WP:POINT. And "proper notice" will not handle the fact that most will see "Government document" and feel that it is somehow official government policy, giving undue weight to something that is little more than one expert's opinion, or more likely, one non-expert's opinion of what the literature he read says. At best. --Justanother20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That is the same argument that you made above with regard to the word "report". Surely you must feel that some sort of connotation changes with use of the word "document" ? Smee20:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
Make a proposal, then, Justanother. We are in agreement that the current article name does not work, and we are trying to find an alternative that does not violate WP:V, so me need to move on and explore alternatives. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)20:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
1) Delete for the reasons I gave in my first comment on the issue; it is cherry pie and inherently POV or 2) leave as-is but set out some guideline as to what is and is not a "government report" and handle it case-by-case. Other than delete there is no magic pill to fix this; just hard work. --Justanother22:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Support People focusing on the word "report" are missing the fact that this information comes from the government. What to call the information (report/study/opinion/whatever) is semantics. Those who think it doesn't qualify as a "government" release aren't making a very strong case for how they think such a report is created or released, this is a quote from a conversation I am having with Lsi john:
This is what I got from your answers: Government Report: any number of people can write them depending on who has been designated to do so within their branch of government, it becomes a government report when a decsion is made by whomever is designated to release the report by whatever agency is releasing the report under a banner of being an official government report. You may have typed a response, but you didn't answer my questions.Anynobody21:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Cover Page of Document shows it is a "Government report"
1979, The Cultic Phenomena: New and Emerging Religious Movements in America, report by Charles H. Whittier, printed by the United States Congressional Research Service report.
Not really... We have argued this quote throughly. the CSR is not the government and the "report" is a report for an unnamed Congressman/woman that requested it confidentially. It is not a "Government report" at all. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
"[CRS] is not the government" ??? As I understand it, CRS staff are government employees, paid with U.S. Treasury payroll checks. If so, they are unquestionably part of the government. Milo03:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hrm, curiouser and curiouser. Then whey the label smack dab at the top that says: Report No. 79-24 GOV. Why else have that specific wording in there, if not to indicate that? Smee03:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
(EC) No, the cover adds nothing to what we already know and has no effect on the arguments advanced. We already knew that it was a "report" and we already knew that CRS is a gov't agency. It is not a "Government Report" for the purposes of this section. Government reports are released to the public clearly as the position of the government. That clarity is the determining factor. This is an internal report. --Justanother03:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That does not answer the question posed above -- Namely, why the deliberate labeling of the government report as such: Report No. 79-24 GOV. What else would that indicate? Smee03:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
That is the numbering scheme used by the CRS, and that does not make it "government report": The Congressional Research Service is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.. As you can see it is The CRS does not produces congressional reports, or government reports.. They produce research for members of Congress, or for congressional committees, which in turn may publish congressional reports (an this governmental reports) based on their research and the research of other private and public bodies. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Do some research, Smee, and you will find that all government reports carry the seal of the branch of government that issue it, as well as carrying the names and signatures of elected members of the government, not just the name of a researcher. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)03:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, however this does not belie the fact that Report No. 79-24 GOV is used to identify this particular government report. I'm just sayin', is all... I am still not opposed to your move suggestion above... Smee03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
This is an example of a Congressional report (and hence a "government report") http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html - JOINT INQUIRY INTO INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES BEFORE AND AFTER THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
REPORT OF THE U.S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND U.S. HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
What all this demonstrates is that the definitions of "report" are more flexible than some editors have understood. Internal, external, whatever kind of report is a distraction. The real issue is the level of authority that a particular report carries; i.e, is it a report in the formal research stage, or is it a report that has been accepted by government decision makers as official or policy. Milo03:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Milo, you've hit it right on the head. For Jossi's example uses an abbreviated "Rept.", whereas the one to the right utilized the full word "Report", with ann abbreviated "GOV", in CAPS... Smee03:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
That is not the issue, Smee. A report of the government is only such if it carries the imprimatur of the government, which that specific report doesn't. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I am still curious. Says who?? Where have you gleaned this info, show me your sources please. Without something to back up this statement, it is simply your opinion, and "Government report", simply means, "A report produced by a branch of the Federal government." Smee03:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
And also, if the Federal United States government did not want to lend imprimatur to the government report, why label it as such? And why start off the first paragraph of the report with: "This report deals with the cultic phenomena surrounding new and emerging religious movements in America." Why would the Congressional Research Service refer to it as a "report" at all, and classify it as Report No. 79-24 GOV ??? If they did not want to give it imprimatur, why did they not simply call it a "research paper" or something of the like. We did not call it a government report, the Federal government did, in 1979... Smee04:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
The sources are all there. I have explained this several times already. Now let me ask you a question: Do you really believe that the report by Whittier is a "government report" that represents the position of the Federal Government of the United States in 1979? ≈ jossi ≈(talk)04:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to retype what you say your answer is, you can copy and paste it here. (where's the imprimatur on the 9/11 Congressional report?)Anynobody04:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Read the PDF report linked, and you will know what I mean. In any case, I have made my arguments as we have all done. There is no need to regurgitate these arguments again and again. Ther is a proposal on the table to rename the article, and if that proposal is not accepted, then we will need to seek mediation. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the report is a "government report", that represents the fact that it is a report produced by the Federal Government of the United States in 1979. But you still have not given me any citation or evidence stating that the term "government report" means imprimatur, as opposed to simply denoting a report produced by a branch of the federal government - except for your own opinion in the matter... Smee04:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
You are skirting my question. Do you really believe that the report by Whittier is a "government report" that represents the position of the Federal Government of the United States in 1979? ≈ jossi ≈(talk)04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, it is you who are skirting my question. I don't care if it represents the postition of the Federal Government, that is not the issue here, it is a publication of the federal government. If you cannot cite a source that defines what is and is not imprimatur with regard to reports in this case, then why do we assume that is what the term "government report" connotates? It is you who is ascribing waaaay to much imprimatur to the term "government report" in the first place. It simply means, reports produced by the federal government. To say anything more is simply opinion, unless backed up by evidence. Smee05:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
I believe a report from 1979 identifies part of the government's research into cults at that time. When you say represents the position of the federal government, you are saying this it what a government report represents: You must realize that a Congressional Report only gives the position of Congress so by the definition of "representing the government" it does not There is no report that contains the view of the entire government. Anynobody06:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
We have made our arguments and no one is giving in even an inch, and it is pointless making the same the same arguments again and again. There is is a proposal on the table to rename this as Groups referred to as cults in government documents. Either we accept that compromise, or some one comes up with a better idea. Time to move on.≈ jossi ≈(talk)14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈(talk) all I'm saying is that no single report represents the entire US federal government's opinion on something. To create a report like that a process combining all three branches as illustrated in my diagram would need to be created.
The report you cited is the opinion of Congress. Since it's a part of the government such a report could be called a government report but is more accuratly called a Congressional report. Calling it a government report doesn't make it the "opinion" of the federal government, it simply makes it a report created by a part of the government. Anynobody20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, if and until you cite some sort of source that backs up your own personal opinion that "government reports" connotates the backing of all branches of the federal government, this statement is simply your own opinion, and the evidence put forth already only supports that these are reports produced by branches of the federal government. Smee23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
That is not my argument, Smee. My argument is the misleading title of this article as it pertains to its contents. If you cannot see that, then I have nothing more to discuss here. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The end result is you have put forth no evidence to suggest that the term "government report", means anything other than a report produced by a federal agency of the government. Smee23:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
Absolutely no. See the comments by other editors, and the proposal to resolve this dispute. If you do not want to resolve the dispute by a compromise in changing the name of the article, please escalate the WP:DR to the next step. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that government reports only come from the head of each federal branch? I'm also wondering if you'd mind explaining why the next statement about another government agency (this time under the Executive branch) is or is not what you'd call a bona fide government report?
I'm asking because this goes beyond the dispute here, it actually affects many other government reports used on other parts of Wikipedia. Anynobody23:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No I'm asking if the other two cited reports in the article are disputed too, you did read it right? Anynobody00:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I just scanned and I don't see anything that indicated that anyone has tagged them as disputed. Were you wanting to dispute them? Lsi john01:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Nor did I, however since the validity of calling the CRS an agency designated to write government reports is being questioned it seems like a good idea to make sure another Legislative agency the GAO which prepares reports for Congress is accepted. (I honestly can't think of why anyone would question the validity of a FBI report, but there's a first time for everything) Anynobody01:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well.. you're the one who brought it up. So you must have thought of it. That tells me that you have a concern about using them. I don't see anyone else as having challenged them. If you aren't questioning them, why bring it up? Personally, I let other editors come up with their own objections to things. I don't find that it is productive to dig around and find things for other people to object to. If you're happy with those items and have a concern about them, perhaps you should shhhh so nobody else notices that you think they're questionable. Lsi john01:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Since you seem to have no problem with including the GAO report, what makes them different than the CRS besides the fact the GAO researches money expenditures as requested by Congress and CRS does the same for them regarding information? Anynobody02:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Now you're just looking for a debate, and homie don't play that game. I never said I didn't have a problem with them. Don't find things for me to object to, and don't tell me what I don't have a problem with. Lsi john02:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well that's just it, Lsi john I was asking if anyone had issues with the GAO reports. You said: I don't see anyone else as having challenged them. If you aren't questioning them, why bring it up? to answer you with your own words: I never said I didn't have a problem with them. So for clarification, like I asked, do you (or anyone else) have a problem with the other two reports. Anynobody02:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to them, if you read my initial question you'll notice it implies I am satisfied (is the CRS the only disputed etc. If I had an identifiable issue I'd just come out and say it.)
If you are satisfied with them, then I'm curious why you would target them for removal.
Regarding the FBI report, it discussed the two groups, and sort-of implies that they are cults, but technically doesn't single them out as cults or specifically refer to them as cults. In both cases the report used the actions or events surrounding the groups as an example of what it was trying to say, but it did not actually refer to either group as a cult. Therefore, I might be inclined to challenge on the basis of incorrect or inaccurate citation. Lsi john02:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
After reading your last edit, and checking out Project Megiddo again, are we talking about the same FBI report? I reverted your last edit and linked the report in a section below, if I missed those statements kindly say what page they are on.
I think you are reserving the right to argue about them in the event others step in and prove you wrong on the CRS issue.
I don't object to them, if you read my initial question you'll notice it implies I am satisfied (is the CRS the only disputed etc. If I had an identifiable issue I'd just come out and say it.)
I already said, I don't need you to find things for me to argue about, object to, or anything else. If you want to object to it, then object to it. In the mean time, please un-revert the article. My edit was a true and accurate citation.
Regading the Megiddo.. the first page doesn't even claim to be a report:
"The attached analysis, entitled PROJECT MEGIDDO, is an FBI strategic assessment of the potential for domestic terrorism in the United States undertaken in anticipation of or response to the arrival of the new millennium"
It says it's an analysys entitled PROJECT MEGIDDO. Is that why you think it should be contested? Lsi john03:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I am satisfied that all three reports meet WP:V and WP:RS standards and should be included. I'm kinda curious to know how long you'll attempt to bait me before actually answering my question. (If you read this discussion, it's almost comedic how you have tried to make this about me and not give your opinion. Who's on first? is what it reminds me of, except you want me to actually get frustrated with you). Anynobody03:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't help but notice you started editing in the middle of our conversation. I don't want to sound accusatory, but I think you are editing in bad faith because rather than answer my question here, you've ignored it more than once. Since you refuse to answer a pretty basic question, What's your opinion of them (the other sources), Lsi john? (Good or bad) (3rd request) It looks like you just want to game the editors who disagree with you into a long protracted debate about something that should be pretty straight forward. Anynobody04:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
FBI report didn't define cults, it differentiated between general cults and apocalyptic cults
You need glasses, my friend. I cut and pasted right out of that report. Please revert yourself.
"In the broadest meaning, cults are composed of individuals who demonstrate 'great devotion to a person, idea, object or movement'. However, using that definition, many domestic terrorist groups could be characterized as cults, including Christian Identity churches, Black Hebrew Israelites, and some militias. For law enforcement purposes, a narrower interpretation of groups that qualify as cults is needed. A more useful definition of cults incorporates the term 'cultic relationships' to describe the interactions within a cult. Specifically, a cultic relationship refers to one in which a person intentionally induces others to become totally or nearly totally dependent on him or her for almost all major life decisions, and inculcates in these followers a belief that he or she has some special talent, gift, or knowledge. This definition of cults provides important distinctions that are vital for analyzing a cult’s predilection towards violence."
Anynobody, your claim that the FBI didn't say that is clearly wrong. As a show of good-faith, I request that you revert your own edit. Lsi john03:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Not in your context. The way you quoted the report implied that it was defining cults in general which it is not. Those statements are qualifying what makes apocalyptic cults different from general cult definitions which may include some of the subjects of said report. (The report is about potential millennial violence from pre-identified groups, if it used the general term you were "quoting" then a reader might come away thinking Christian Identity is a cult. Did you just skip to the apocalyptic cults part? The examples it cited that would have be called a cult under the general definition are also listed in the report. Anynobody03:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yo, homes.. I didn't cite a general definition. It appears that you were so anxious to revert me, that you didn't bother to read my edit.
"Groups singled out and analyzed in the report under the heading: "Apocalyptic Cults", included the Branch Davidians, and the Concerned Christians."
Why do you suppose that I think that a specific definition, given under Apocalyptic Cults, would be relevant? hmmmmmmm. Sir, please un-revert your edit. Stop being righteous and play nice. I'm not going to revert you. But I also won't continue to play your debate game until you acknowledge that you were wrong, show good faith, and restore my edit. Until then, you have to find someone else to play with. Peace. Lsi john03:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Honestly your edit looked to me like an attempt to minimize the impact of the word cult, since the differentiation is already made: Among the groups labeled "potentially violent", included "biblically-driven cults",[18] and the report went on to warn that "less time spent on “Bible study” and more time spent on “physical training” - indicate that the cult may be preparing for some type of action."[18] Groups singled out and analyzed in the report under the heading: "Apocalyptic Cults", included the Branch Davidians, and the Concerned Christians.[18] Essentially your edit was redundant, and in being redundant you're ensuring that we are reminded
that the cults in a report about possible violence surrounding the year 2000 aren't just cult, cults. Anynobody04:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Quite simply.. A) Your revert said that my citation was FALSE (basically accusing me of an outright lie), and that was incorrect. B) Not liking my edit is not a reason to revert it. When you don't like something that is factually accurate, the POLITE thing to do is to adjust it so that it better, not abruptly revert it. You've been taking lessons from the wrong people. I'm done here. Lsi john04:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john I apologize for not making it clearer to you that it was the wording and context I object with. Your addition makes the section longer than it needs to be because it's repetitive (my points are underlined):
Project Megiddo was an FBI report, released on October 20, 1999.[18] The report warned against: "the potential for extremist criminal activity in the United States by individuals or domestic groups who attach special significance to the year 2000."[18] Its analysis focused on apocalyptic religious groups, doomsday cults and (New World Order) conspiracy theories. (This seems pretty clear to me, it's not talking about cults in general but violent cults.)
The report stated that a broad definition of cults would include too many groups to be useful and stated the need for a much narrower definition. It then cited a specific definition of cult that included cultic-relationships, which it defined as
"one in which a person intentionally induces others to become totally or nearly totally dependent on him or her for almost all major life decisions, and inculcates in these followers a belief that he or she has some special talent, gift, or knowledge"
and went on to state
"This definition of cults provides important distinctions that are vital for analyzing a cult’s predilection towards violence." (Your addition is conveying the same message, it's about cults prone to violence.)
Among the groups labeled "potentially violent", included "biblically-driven cults",[18] and the report went on to warn that "less time spent on “Bible study” and more time spent on “physical training” - indicate that the cult may be preparing for some type of action."[18] Groups singled out and analyzed in the report under the heading: "Apocalyptic Cults", included the Branch Davidians, and the Concerned Christians.[18]
In other words, it was fine the way it was because it already made clear what type of cults the report was focusing on. Anynobody04:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Not for me, Lsi john seems to understand what I meant based on his recent edit that you corrected so I'm happy. (I created this section to discuss my revert) Anynobody06:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you always refer to yourself in third person and confuse yourself with Smee? This is funnier and funnier. Lets see if I can keep the players straight.. Anynobody concludes that I understood him based on my edit. Smee re-edited and improves the sentence. Anynobody confuses himself with smee and says however he came to the conclusion he did the section looks better .. Nope I cant keep em straight. Good thing taint my job ;) Lsi john06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That for me?! Shucks. And I thought you were the sharp one. I'm not the one seeing conspiracies. or, more correctly, its not conspiracies that I am seeing. jajaja :) Lsi john06:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance on that very tough sentence! I was stumped on how to handle it. I'm not sure I could have finished it without the help! Lsi john05:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I emailed the Director of the CRS regarding our issue. Very very interesting response and one that supports my stand that CRS reports are NOT "government reports" for the purposes of the article. Interestingly, the CRS Coordinator of Communications also addresses CBO and GAO reports, something I had not mentioned.
Dear Mr. (My name removed),
The Director has asked me to respond to your email regarding the “status” of CRS reports. While I’m not sure I can “settle an argument” for you, I can provide you some general thoughts regarding the role of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) vis a vis the Congress and the nature of its reports.
CRS works exclusively for the Congress of the United States. It has no public mission. All of its reports are therefore produced for and provided to Members who are then free to distribute them as they deem appropriate.
As you know, the Congress is a body made up of individual Members – Senators, Representatives, and Delegates – and there is no single voice for the Congress, either for the body as whole or for the individual chambers. Only through the passage of legislation can it be said that the Congress “has spoken.”
CRS, like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as parts of the Legislative Branch, serve the Congress but do not “speak for it.” Only documents provided by these agencies pursuant to specific statutory mandates might be said to be “official government reports” – an imprecise term. Even those documents, however, cannot necessarily be said to “carry the weight or tacit approval” of the Congress.
CRS reports represent our response to congressional legislative needs and in no way represent “what the legislative branch of government says” on a given topic. The 435 members of the House, the 100 Senators, and the delegates and committees that together make up the Congress have no single voice, save through legislation, nor has the Congress vested in CRS the authority to speak for it on any matter.
_______________
(name removed)
Coordinator of Communications
Congressional Research Service
(phone removed)
(e-mail removed)
>>> (My name removed) >>>
Good evening, Mr. Mulhollan
Would you please be kind enough to "settle an argument", as they say.
I edit Wikipedia and the question has come up as to whether a report prepared by your Service for the Congress should be considered a "government report" as in a government report released by some major branch of the federal government and having the backing or support of that branch.
Some of us argue that since your reports are prepared by government experts and since they are submitted to Congress by a government agency then they are "government reports" and carry the weight or perhaps tacit approval of Congress. In other words that your report is "what the government says" or at least "what the Legislative Branch of the government says" on the topic of the report.
Others of us consider it untenable that one would suggest that your work "represents the views of Congress or the US government" and feel that such reports would have to be re-released as official Congressional Reports or incorporated into such to carry the weight of the government. Those of us feel that your reports represent your Service's best assessment of the topic but that they by no means speak for the US government or any major branch of it.
I realize that I may not be wording our issue perfectly or that I may be over-simplifying but would you please give us some off-the-record guidance?
I commend your initiative, however you didn't ask the right question. I'm not saying CRS represents the views of the Congressional branch, I'm saying that they are a federal source of information that is both WP:V and WP:RS. Respectfully, your question: Does a CRS report represent the opinion of Congress (A Congressional report does that). Anynobody21:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. You can complain that I did not ask exactly the right question exactly as you would have but I think the answer speaks for itself "nor has the Congress vested in CRS the authority to speak for it on any matter". And yes, I think that with your civics lessons and "three branches of government" stuff you were indeed trying to make the point that I successfully disproved. Now you want it to be about "are they RS". Are they "information". This article is not "List of groups . . . in government information". It is about reports that speak for a governemt; CRS reports clearly do not. Q.E.D. Really. --Justanother21:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Like I said above, your e-mail was a misrepresentation of the issue at hand (probably accidental).
(Note: I didn't include the copy of Justanother's e-mail in my post for redundancy issues nor did I include the hyperlink to List of groups referred to as cults in government reports for similar reasons.)
I must first apologize for being forced to possibly take up a bit more of your time, on a relatively simple issue. You probably recall being contacted recently as to whether CRS reports are "the opinion" of Congress, for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. I think the person who contacted you confused some of the points in the argument he was referring to, and I'll explain as briefly as possible what I mean. (I happened to mention that only something like a Congressional report would come close to representing their opinion on a subject)
On Wikipedia only sources that can be verified and considered reliable are fit for citation, assuming the rules are being followed of course. It is my view that a CRS report is just as verifiable and reliable as a report from any other government agency, be it another Legislative agency like the GAO or one on a different branch, like the FBI.
Some have argued that the CRS is a "private" arm of the LOC, to give you an idea of the general misconception of the agency. I realize you probably have important work to do, but in order to make sure you don't have to spend much time on this I am including a link to the article in question: Wikipedia: and the original e-mail from the person I mentioned:
I feel that your communication (as worded) was highly improper, as you did not make it clear that you do not know Justanother's name. The communication you have solicited could easily reveal his name in a reply correspondence and you made no provision to alert the other person that you do not know his name. In fact, by referring to his communication, you actually imply that you know him. Lsi john22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Which was the wrong question to ask.... We are not discussing of this report is a reliable sources that can be used in Wikipedia. It can. But it cannot be used on an article about "Government reports" as per the very eloquent response by the CRS Coordinator of Communications. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The topic isn't List of groups referred to as cults in official goverment reports either, but I think the response is clear:
"Only documents provided by these agencies pursuant to specific statutory mandates might be said to be 'official government reports' "
Anynobody, are you suggesting we include unofficial government reports? I'm sure we can quibble about that now, eh? Lets just delete the improper reports and move on. Guess that addresses your FBI and GAO question too. Lsi john22:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
(EC) As you like, Anynobody. But as far as my misrepresenting the issue, to be honest and after reviewing a number of your posts, I think that you are misrepresenting the issue and have been for quite some time. Or misunderstanding the issue. Or trying to recast the issue. I think that, except perhaps for you, we were all talking about what I asked the Director of the CRS - in so many words; do you, in any way "speak for any part of the government"? Answer - NO. This is exactly what I argued at This is simple - just look at their mission and you argued against me there. To be honest I do not think that CRS reports are RS either. But that is an argument for another day. Right now we have been talking about "do they represent the views" of anyone. And they do not. I think that you have been trying to argue two points at once. Sometimes you want to discuss "are they RS" and sometimes you want to tell us about the three branches of government and imply that the CRS report speaks for one of them. So do you agree now that a CRS report in no way "speaks for" any branch of the United States government? Let's at least get that out of the way. --Justanother22:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
AN, the question is "Does the CRS write government reports". That cannot be re-worded or twisted. It is clear. It is simple. Does the CRS write government reports?
Justanother asked exactly that question. The CRS said NO.
Anynobody did NOT ask the question. Not once. Not a single time. The ONLY objection you could possibly have to Justanother's email, was that he helped clarify a definition for Government Report. The ONLY thing you should have written to them was YOUR definition for Government Report. You didn't do that. Justanother was very clear, open, up front, straight forward.. and clarified in his words that we are asking if the CRS writes GOVERNMENT reports, or just reports. All you have done is muddied and confused someone and thats exactly the reply you will get. You wrote a POV email (probably unintentionally) asking if they write GOOD reports. Lsi john22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the numerous responses generated I feel compelled to explain that at this point I'll be waiting for a response before posting here again. I don't expect a reply today given the time on the East Coast, I think tomorrow or Monday would be the earliest. Anynobody00:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
And, given the current evidence (whether or not you agree with it, it is what we have), we will be expecting you to leave the article as-is, until you can justify putting the redacted data back. Lsi john00:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR gets a lot of bad press because it can't be inserted into articles. What is little known or understood is that WP:OR which is not tendentious, obvious crankery, trolling, annoyingly off-topic, or otherwise disruptive, is useful and AFAIK, permitted in forming talk page consensus. Milo00:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point, thank you for pointing it out. We are most assuredly not using the e-mail in the article. --Justanother00:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Unlike emails, notes, and letters, all three types of documents, CRS, GAO, and FBI, are assumed to be fact-checked and are expected by default to be reliable sources.
While you are free to discuss article issues on user talk pages, as a courtesy to other editors, and for continuity of archives, please discuss substantive article issues here. Thanks. Milo10:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved the page
That move was a "desperate move" indeed. You lost this round, Smee. I will ask Jossi to move it back rather than edit war and mess everything up more than you already have. --Justanother22:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This has already been discussed at length above. The majority opinion was for the move. Smee22:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
Seriously, I see jossi as saying he supported having a proposal and a discussion. I don't see that he supported the move. He may have, but I didn't see it. It isn't something I care to fight about but I think arbitrarily up and moving it is a bit childish. I knew it would get moved anyway so I have no intention of fighting it. I just wish you would show respect to your fellow editors as you want them to show you respect. That's been my biggest issue all along. You come across as heavy handed and arbitrary. That offends me the same as hurtful things offend you. No worries. Lsi john22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, worries, for your and certain others' persistent need to discuss individual editors as opposed to articles. Smee22:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
Smee, I'm trying to find common ground. I'm trying to find a place where we can edit together and show each other respect. By telling me what is hurtful to you, I know what to avoid saying. By me telling you what is offensive to me, you can learn what to avoid around me. You have forbidden me from posting on your user page, so relevant comments in places like this are my only means of communication with you. I am not discussing you. Please read again, I am discussing how your edit patterns and edit comments affect me. You have been given feedback by others in the same way. I am choosing to get along with you. I am asking for your cooperation and respect in return. Thanks. Lsi john23:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No. Your continual refusal to stick to articles' content, and instead discuss what you feel to be certain perceptions and personal issues and habits, is inappropriate. It persistently pushes discussions towards back and forth about individual editors' behaviour patterns, as opposed to article content. Smee23:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
And edit comments, and commentary, are part of what drive people apart. They create friction. Like when you just told me to get off Jossi's page. Its his page, not yours. And it came across as a hurtful thing to be chased off his userpage by another editor. If you don't want to know when you're being hurtful then I won't tell you. I was trying in good faith to help us get along. Lsi john23:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to continue in this escalating and off-topic inappropriate thread. It is more logical to continue related discussions here, as opposed to Jossi's page. I know that he does not appreciate clogging up his page when conversations can go on article talk pages. Smee23:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
Formatting of groups within the article
Currently, the article is formatted as follows:
Groups are listed alphabetically by country, with the date of their appearance in the respective government report noted in the section header.
I would like to change the formatting of the article to:
Groups are organized alphabetically, with the document cited as a notation and footnoted in the References section below.
The latter version is sort of similar to List of psychologists, except of course in this case there would be a very extensive References section, with footnoted citations. We could still have subsections at the very bottom of the article if desired, above the References section, that briefly describe some of the documents.
Due to real world needs for my attention I haven't carefullly thought through the difference between old and new formats for the special needs of government documents, but what I see on the surface looks like sharp, clean editing work, and you have my consensus. Thank you :) Milo13:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Smee, I understand you have already started much work on a project page, no doubt with the best of intentions, but IMHO this proposal is a huge step backward in what has up till now been a constructive, encyclopedic (and, from a practical editing standpoint, less divisive) approach. The current focus on the reports provides important context. A single list stripped of that context (even one that "footnotes" the references), however, creates the false impression that there is some sort of prevailing government consensus on classification of groups as "cults" that simply does not exist. Here are some reasons why -
The individual government context: Lumping all the groups in a single list creates a "lowest common denominator" effect, i.e. the widest list ever compiled effectively becomes "the" list. In reality, governments' approaches and views on individual groups vary widely (in fact most don't compile "cult-watching" lists at all). For example, the vast majority of references come from the French report, which is at the extreme end of the spectrum (it labels virtually everyone but the three major monotheistic religions as a cult, including humanists, survivalists, industrial arts clubs etc.). Both this aspect and the fact that it provides no methodology or individual reasons for its inclusion of most groups has in fact brought the French report in for criticism by other governments.
The temporal context: Most of the reports date from the mid-90s and were a response to the Aum Shirikyo/Solar Temple/Heaven's Gate succession of events and fears that so-called 'doomsday cults' would increase and radicalise in the approach to the millineum (a fear which turned out to be largely unfounded), and thus do not necessarily reflect current government attitudes. For example, most of the reports originate from European governments and institutions that have since become more liberal in their approach and/or abandoned their lists (I would accept that France has maintained a 'cult-watching' policy, but this is primarily for reasons peculiar to France, namely the strong secularist ideology of its society and government, and even France has now acknowledged that the use of 'cult lists' goes against public freedoms).
The purposive context: Some reports were produced internally in a single government department, by a single specialist (e.g. the 30-year old Whittier report), for a limited purpose and/or were not endorsed by the corresponding department or government. As such, it is misleading to describe them as government reports without further context, as they do not necessarily reflect government policy (e.g. the United States views other governments' compilation of 'cult lists' as a discriminatory practice contrary to respect for freedom of religion, and places such governments on its own 'religious freedom' watchlist!).
I realise there is room for discussion and debate on all of the above, but I raise these points now not because I seek to jump into an argument here on the significance of the reports. Quite the contrary: The main point I am trying to make is that creation of a single list oversimplifies the article to the point that it is misleading, the result being that an otherwise constructive effort risks degenerating into another POV battlefield like the original LOGRTAC. In particular I object to the proposed project page, which inexplicably deletes all the contextual information on the reports, which is by no means trivial or superfluous in this article. Wikipedia should inform, not misinform (whether intentionally or unintentionally) by omission of important context. -- Really Spooky18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Milo, I did my best to model after LOGRTAC, and utilize reputable source citations. As to Really Spooky's comments, duly noted, however the title of the article is "Groups referred to as...", and not "List of reports that refer to groups as...". Thus, the LOGRTAC makes more sense and is easier to utilize/maintain. Smee19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
Smee, your comments are noted, but they are circular. One could argue just as forcefully that it 'makes more sense' to change the title to "List of reports that refer to groups as..." because that would more accurately reflect the content of the article. Indeed, I note you have changed the title at least once already.
You assert that the proposal will result in 'ease of utilisation and maintenance', but do not explain how. I see nothing disproportionately burdensome or inefficient about the article's current structure. More importantly, the very point I am making is that your proposal errs on the side of overgeneralisation and that this seriously undermines the article's quality in a fundamental way that far outweighs any perceived aesthetic benefits.
I will just repeat, then, that I oppose the proposed wholescale and unilateral restructuring of the page, particularly one that lumps everything into a single list and removes large amounts of essential contextual information. In my view, that is quite a different article altogether, and moreover one that misleads Wikipedia readers as to the true nature of government perceptions of 'cults'. -- Really Spooky20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a sorting issue easily solved by listing them both ways. I've never met anyone who was confused by the way books have a table of contents, chapter headings, and an index. Milo20:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Based on Smee's very presumptive page move, I have requested and received full protection for this page until such time as we sort this out the right way. --Justanother17:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
If discussion is kept here it will make voting a lot more inviting.
May I suggest and request a cooling off period here? Both Jossi and Justanother are on wiki breaks and I think a short break here would be appropriate. Lsi john02:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am not going to be editing but I wanted to start this because I did not want to ask for page protection and then not address the cause of the protection being requested (the page move). We can just leave this here and see what happens. --Justanother02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I still do not understand why the government report from the Congressional Research Service was removed. Clearly was are stating that this was a lowercase government report, not an uppercase "Government Report". And I will make this explicitly clear on the page's instructions when the article is unprotected. Smee02:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
All due respect, I can offer to explain why but I believe its been covered fairly thoroughly. On behalf of myself and those on wikibreak, I would request a few days for everyone to cool off here. Having the information left out for a few days isn't going to have a significant impact on wiki. Thank you. Lsi john02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
IF this was supposed to be a list as you assume it to be, I would have originally titled it: Lists of groups referred to as cults in official federal reports that represent the full authority and designation as "cults" by all branches of the federal governments of listed sovereign governments. Barring that, I fail to understand how, individuals could assume that "government reports", means the full backing as such of the term "cult" by the entire government?????????????????????????????? Smee02:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Smee, you do not understand the arguments of any of the above editors that argued against its inclusion? I do not say "agree with", I say "understand". I think you understand perfectly as evidenced by your desire to make it explicitly clear that your interpretation is the "correct one". We are deciding the issue now; "lowercase government report" = "government document" = simple document, no more "special" than any other of an expert or academic. No need for a special "government reports/documents" article if that is all you mean. But we've said all this before. --Justanother02:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying my interpretation is the correct one, simply the most obvious that the title implies a lowercase "government report" as such. And that to imply anything else is simply chasing windmills. Smee03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
If the real concern is documents such as the Whittier research paper, IMHO the report/document debate is a red herring. Personally I see no problem with describing the Whittier paper as a ‘report’. The real problem is the operative word ‘government’, which is used here as an adjective. This is correctly perceived by most people as indicating that the document or report has been prepared or endorsed in the name of, or on behalf of, the government. For example, an expert report is called what it is because it has been signed by an expert, not because some non-expert’s report was received or published by an expert without endorsement.
In contrast to some of the other editors above, I would be willing to accept that the report of a commission or even an individual that had been duly appointed and accepted by the US Congress (but not an individual congressman or group of congressmen acting on their own) should be sufficient to describe it as a ‘government report’, since the US Congress is a branch of the US government and, most importantly, acts in the name of the US government in those areas that are within its authority. Similarly, final court judgments and policy documents endorsed by the executive branch could also be fairly described as government reports or documents.
Without more, however, all we have in the Whittier report is a research paper prepared by a single civil service employee, without any information as to his qualifications, who requested it, for what purpose it was requested, or whether it was endorsed, rejected or simply ignored. It is misleading to describe such a document as a ‘government’ report or document or include it on this page without a hefty explanatory disclaimer. -- Really Spooky13:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Spooky, you are right, of course, about what this is really about. I look on this discussion of name change as shorthand or proxy for a "vote" on whether materials that were not released to the public as representing anyone or anything "official" should be included in an article that clearly indicates that we are referring to "official" government "stuff", whether it be "report" or "document". The name change is an attempt to erode the tacit requirement that these "reports" carry some modicum of government sanction. If my argument moves you to vote one way or another, please do. You are also welcome to recast this discussion completely to reflect the actual issue. --Justanother14:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Spooky, yes. I agree that the research paper can be called a report. But, as you also say, not a government report. I believe that the reason for wanting to switch from 'government reports' to 'government documents' is not a 'report .vs. docuement' issue, but that the report in question is not, as you say, an official 'government report', which is implied by the article title. I believe that my collegues, on the other side of the debate, wish to preserve the word 'government' in the title, which they cannot do without changing the word 'report'. Thus the birth of the 'government documents' suggestion. To me, this boils down to manipulating the title in order to include a desired report, which doesn't seem to be in keeping with good wiki-spirit. Lsi john14:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Could everyone take a break? Please? This issue will keep for a few days. Its not life and death. Thanks. Lsi john 03
02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Noted. However, I will still ask for input from other editors with regards to this issue. Thanks. Smee03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Legislative (aka Congress) divided into the
