Talk:The Family Survival Trust

Is there a case for supposing that this page's neutrality is disputed? If all talk has been deleted then it appears not. Why then is the dispute banner retained? I am aware that the subject of pro- and anti-cult activity is highly emotive and that FAIR is subject to heavy attacks by cult groups, but surely this should be an open discussion, not a closed case. Mark Beard (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no case is being made for disputing the neutrality of this page then I propose that the dispute banner is removed. Anyone have anything to say on the matter? Anyone??? Mark Beard (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I support dispute banner removal. Some investigation revealed that this site has had a history of dispute with major deletions of banned user’s material being in Sept 2007. As it presently stands the article appears neutral.wikirpg (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of references

This was addressed to user PelleSmith (talk · contribs) on their talk page but probably belongs here.

I asked that before we commenced our discussion of The Family Survival Trust topic, they;

• had copies of, or had read any of the references included?

The reason I asked this is because they had place a fact tag where a given reference most CLEARLY states just that.

For the record, I am not the original author of the topic. I am not involved in the group and I merely updated and added a number of references that I have.

If anyone has other references, I would be very grateful if they could included them in the topic and discussion.

There is no doubt that FAIR/TFST is notable both in their country and their field and so I am removing the speedy deletion threat. The content is inline with the academic discussion I have read. It certainly appears that TFST is not at the rabid end of an "anti-cult" movement, nor can I find any references that states that they are.

I suspect that there must be conference notes and commentary elsewhere but it seemed to me the topic is fair and informative enough as it stands.

I am going to move in some more of the historical elements about FAIR from Researching new religious movements by Elisabeth Arweck, hence the tab, but I am unsure of how relevant they are to TFST now.

Thank you. --Soulslearn (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What reference did I delete? I did not delete any references or any material. I added material from a reliable academic source, something this entry is in sore need of. I also added an appropriate tag to the entire entry and two citation needed tags. Please leave the tags up until the concerns are dealt with. Regarding the text you deleted -- you claim FAIR is not part of the "anti-cult movement" and that you can find no references that say they are yet you deleted the reference to that very fact which I added along with the statement--which ironically comes from the very book you are making reference to above. The book page is available through google books for anyone to verify, but there are others as well.

• Researching New Religious Movements: Responses and Redefinitions see pg. 111. "This section deals with FAIR (Family, Action, Information and Resource) the first 'anti-cult' group in Britain."

In fact her whole chapter on the ACM in Britain revolves around FAIR. I am restoring my edits. Please engage the talk page instead of edit warring. It is clear that my addition is referenced, now please deal with the citation needed tags here by quoting adequate text from the supposed sources. The advertisement tag also needs to be dealt with. The page currently reads like a promotion of the groups services, which is not encyclopedic. In fact that's why we have the tag. Please either work with reliable sources to put in objective information about this group or explain why you don't agree with the tag. Do not simply remove it. You may put the in use tag up along with the advertisement tag btw, there is no conflict. But don't remove it as long as the entry reads like an ad and don't use the in use tag unless you are literally making edits this second. It is not a place holder to give you time to read up on the subject over the next few days while no one else is allowed to edit.PelleSmith (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please also make a case for the various categories you want to include--I removed them because they too general. The category that is left fits within those general categories. Note also that Cult-watching group actually links to Anti-cult movement and hence is redundant. Unless you create an entry by that name please do not re-add it.PelleSmith (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Considered a part of the Anti-cult movement

Along with Arweck plenty of other scholars place FAIR within the ACM. Here are some that are readily available through Google Books. Please refrain from removing this reference.PelleSmith (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• George D. Chryssides, Exlploring New Religions pg. 345
• Peter Bernard Clarke, New Religions in Global Perspective pg. 52
• J. Gordon Melton, in New Religious Movements pg. 225

TFST is not FAIR.

If you look at that specific underconstruction tag, it mentions "days", other tags are for immediate work in progress. I do not see that any of what previous authors have written is controversial. Please expand.

Ditto, yes, I wrote right above you that I am use that book as the source to develop a history context. Do you want to offer a first draft?

One thing that is unclear to me - and I guess everyone else at present - is how TFST relates to FAIR, and FAIR no longer exists. The same people are not involved. Is there any material to suggest that they are still "anti-cult" or engaging in "anti-cult" actions, whatever they might be. See discussion on, Talk:Anti-cult movement. The term "anti-cult" appears to me to be an anachronism.

The stuff on FAIR in Arweck's book relates way back to the 70s. That is a long time ago. I have not found any more contemporary commentary. I think we can safely write of the past in such terms but does it relate to the present? Hence a more neutral position for TFST until it is clear.

For me, its as simple as that. --Soulslearn (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't move/rename the entry on FAIR to this new title and then claim this entry has nothing to do with FAIR. You need to provide reliable sources that state that TFST has nothing to do with FAIR. "We" cannot safely say anything without reliable sources. Please stop making edits based upon your own judgments -- and take the time and reread WP:NOR. The term "anti-cult" is not an anachronism, it is a term still used by scholars to refer to groups like FAIR. Please see the sources above. Writing an entry based upon FAIR or TFST's own self image is not a "more neutral position". The entry reads like an advertisement because it is, and lets be clear, your recent changes have brought this on ... not "any of the previous authors". You have added material from Arweck, but only in relation to FAIR's own claims about themselves, and not the views of others, or more importantly her own conclusions as a researcher. You have also added cherry picked quotes from a couple of other sources which read like the quotes a publisher plucks out of context to put on the back of a book they are trying to sell. Again ... like and advertisement. The tag stays.PelleSmith (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Pelle, you are deliberately misrepresenting me here and missing the point.

Have you actually read Arweck? Rather than pepper the page with fact tags, please do as that is the source for my recent edits.

FAIR obviously has something to do with TFST, historically. Those comments may well be accurate but the fact remains that we are just going to have to wait to see how the split between TFST and 'FAIR News' evolves and personnel change is documented within academia. You can state what you like about FAIR, historically, but all we can write about TFST is something neutral and minimal until it become evident.

• Could I ask you outright, what is the axe you want to grind about FAIR, and why?

I am going to disagree with you square on the 'advert' tag and remove it. The reason I replaced it with an 'expand' was to invite you and others to contribute by way of edits. it would be very hard for me to see that by placing such a tag and peppering the article with 'fat' tags (when the actual source is very clear) is anything but a ploy to discredit or obstruct progress when you are doing no work of you own.

It is not necessary to place the same 'reference' tag on every word or sentence of a paragraph. Please read the reference. --Soulslearn (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Chryssides refers to the 70s. Arweck documents FAIR disassociation with deprogrammers etc calling it "counter-cult" not anti-cult.
• Bernard Clarke refers to FAIR change of policy and read as if it is quoting Arweck exactly
• Wilson & Cresswell again refers to the 70s but later notes its change and calls it a "cult monitoring" organization and notes the organization's rejection of "anti-cult", claims to be doctrine neutral and complaints of being "too moderate". --Soulslearn (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no axe to grind to grind with FAIR. All I ask if that you refrain from WP:OR, and stick to what reliable sources say ... all of which place FAIR within the ACM. Can you quote a single academic source that does not? I've asked you this several times now. Clearly FAIR rejects the anti-cult label, but that has never been the point. Cherry picking quotes in which scholars highlight FAIR's own self perception is no different from FAIR's self publications on the matter. Regarding the matter of FAIR vs. TFST I will once again point out that the entry was originally about FAIR. YOU moved it to TFST. I doubt any academic sources have covered the organization since the name change. Any claims about TFST being different from FAIR are just hearsay until they are backed by WP:RS. This is about basic Wikipedia policy and not about axe grinding. Also when you are quoting a source you need to provide a page number. That is why I used the verification tag. Also if a piece of text cannot be verified by the source then it doesn't belong in the cited text.PelleSmith (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Pelle, you have some axe you want to grind about anti-cultism. I have no idea what it is or why but I am sure it is nothing to do what I have ever done to you.

If you actually read the book, you will see that Arweck raises a question, is "FAIR an anti-cult group?" (p. 125)

Arweck does not make the statement "FAIR are an anti-cult group".

The following section goes on to list numerous rebuttals and analysis that instead place FAIR as "cult monitoring". The other authors follow suit.

Unfortunately, placing pages numbers do not ensure that other individuals actually read them and, even if they did, that it would make any difference if they had their own agenda.

If you want to discuss why you feel so strongly about this matter, then I am very happy to discuss it with you in a reasonable manner and assure you of my position. --Soulslearn (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Page numbers are simply a necessary reality in citing sources, without them we cannot verify what is being cited. There is absolutely nothing novel or strange about that. When you quote from sources or reference specific statements you have to provide page numbers. Unfortunately I have read the book. The fact that Arweck questions FAIR's specific position within the ACM, which is more moderate than other groups, does not change the fact that she also affirmatively makes assertions like this in the introduction to the section (bold face mine):

• "This section deals with FAIR, (Family, Action, Information and Resource), the first 'anti-cult group' in the UK." (p. 111)
• "FAIR is the first 'anti-cult' organization which was established in Britain." (p. 111)

I already supplied one of the quotes above, so your suggestion is particularly unhelpful if you are really interested in dialogue. The other authors I've linked also affirmatively place them within the ACM. Arweck's chapter is titled, "The 'anti-cult' movement's response" and the specific section about FAIR is called, "THE ACM RESPONSE IN BRITAIN: THE CASE OF FAIR." Discussing this reasonably would require that you produce evidence of your claims from the sources but that seems like it will never happen at this point. Instead of proving your point you have decided to repeat this claim that I have an axe to grind or an agenda of some kind. Good luck with that. My agenda is abiding by Wikipedia rules and conventions and not tendentiously POV-pushing. You can parrot yourself as much as you want but its fairly clear at this point that you are uninterested in what reliable sources say since they do not agree with you. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

FAIR 'was'. It 'is' no more.

I am sorry Pelle ... your techniques are all too common and familiar. They has nothing to do with guise of "policy" and "rule". Have a good time grinding your axe.

I did my little bit of good and moved things forward. Life is just too short to bothered.

--Soulslearn (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I wrote ... Discussing this reasonably would require that you produce evidence of your claims from the sources but that seems like it will never happen at this point. Instead of proving your point you have decided to repeat this claim that I have an axe to grind or an agenda of some kind. Good luck with that. And I rest my case.PelleSmith (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "anti-cult"

The "Anti-cult movement" is an umbrella term used by academics to encompass a more or less interconnected network of groups and individuals who did and/or do oppose "cults" and NRMs in various capacities. You may note that Arweck uses scare quotes for both "cult" and for "anti-cult", thereby drawing attention to the fact that these are labels with variable contextual significance. It is my understanding that at the outset ACM groups embraced the "anti-cult" label but soon after rejected it. FAIR's own response seems exemplary of this and is predicated on the rejection of accusations by "cult" groups that they are "anti-religious." Therefore groups like FAIR respond by claiming that they are not opposed to religious belief systems or to the right of worshiping a faith of one's choice, but instead are opposed to what they see as illegal, immoral, or unethical behaviors. Neither of these two poles of accusation and defense define the term ACM in scholarly literature, nor do they limit its scope. A group like FAIR may be on the moderate side of the ACM groups that practiced deprogramming, (and indeed scholarship seems to support this), but they are still squarely classified within the movement because, to take an example from Chryssides, "[a]lthough FAIR officials reject the term 'anti-cult', FAIR's main strategy seems designed to hamper the progress of NRMs in a variety of ways." (Taken from the entry) When we classify FAIR in this way here we are not making substantive claims about FAIR being "anti-religious", we are simply reflecting the reality of scholarly classifications. The full subtlety of FAIR's position within the opposition to "cults" should be worked out in the entry and I've attempted to make edits which clarify the matter. However, moving forward in this regard means relying on the full pictures presented by scholars and not simply FAIR's own claims (whether or not they are being quoted or paraphrased in a piece of scholarship).PelleSmith (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this belongs on the specific topic page? --Soulslearn (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Family Survival Trust

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Family Survival Trust's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "FECase":

• From European Federation of Centres of Research and Information on Sectarianism: Regis Dericquebourg, A Case Study: FECRIS, Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews, 2012/2, p.183–189, ISBN 978-3-643-99894-1
• From Tom Sackville: Regis Dericquebourg, A Case Study: FECRIS, Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews, 2012/2, p.188–189, ISBN 978-3-643-99894-1

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)