Talk:Keith Raniere/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Questioned Neutrality

The page reads as an advert, with unsubstantiated comments like "Keith Raniere's devoted followers say he is one of the smartest and most ethical people alive. They describe him as a soft-spoken, humble genius who can diagnose societal ills with remarkable clarity." Where is the evidence for this?

Really! The "evidence" is the organization's own self-promotion site. Chrisrus (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but maybe you guys can add something? I think it's more than a bit pejorative to call Raniere's NXIVM a "cult." Isn't that in the eye of the beholder or believer as the case may be?--JamesChambers666 (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I went ahead and revised some information on the site try and resolve the neutrality dispute. Please let me know what you think U21980 (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that affirmation about Raniere "soft-spoken, humble genius who can diagnose societal ills with remarkable clarity." is just an opinion of his followers, of course we as his followers will say nice things about it, but is already removed so lets try to resolve this cause I think is important to reflect the life of someone so smart.Verdell2010 (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, has he ever published anything in peer-reviewed journals? Or anything even not peer-reviewed? Investigate, you won't find anything. But don't take any of the following from me, look into it yourself. Pull sources and see what they say. The Albany Times Union, the Schenctady Gazzette, New York Magazine, and the Metroland have all done investigative reports on him and his group. He ran a multi-level marketing scheme called Consumer Buyline for awhile until that failed and he got sued and finally settled out of court. Last I checked, however, he hadn't paid off the settlement. Now he does the old Norman Vincent Peele thing with some of the "don't-let-inferior-people-drag-you-down" stuff which some think he made it up; never having read Ayn Rand, I suppose. Like I could dunk a basketball or understand particle physics if I really believed in myself, but your self-doubt keeps holding you back, so if you fail it's because you didn't believe deeply enough. Not too original thoughts, but some think so and are willing to pay for it. My brother went to one of his things here in town because he was asked to go by a woman he liked but unless you're a young pretty woman or a very rich man, he's not interested, so they didn't invite him to anything else. He got the basic idea, though: They corner you and try to break you down emotionally by asking you to share your deepest fears and tell you that it's your fears themselves that are keeping you from being anything you want to be. But the whole thing is still run like some kind of Amway multi-level marketing scheme and they want you to commit to his Mary Kay Cosmetics-style rewards and levels thing where each of them tries to start a new pyramid and gets a colored sash and a title. I used to see him walking around surrounded by his women, because wierdly he doesn't drive or talk to anyone not in his group. He's really taken off since he met the professionally trained hypnotist, Nancy Saltzman, who seems to do most of the work nowadays while Kieth sleeps all day and tries (and fails) to get his bevy of fawning girls pregnant, all of whom are dying to produce "the One", his offspring, but I guess he shoots blanks or something because he had to get someone else's kid away from Kristin somehow, lord knows who the father is, so he can do an experiment on how you can raise a kid with no particular culture or language because he's gonna be raised by Nannies each of whom will speak to the kid in a different language, and the kid will have no primary caregiver or parental figure, just the multi-cultural group of ladies and whatever kind of home-schooling they plan to give him. They boy will be "the one" and then save the world, or maybe the experiment will fail and the kid will turn out all messed up; I'm curious to find out. So go for it people, check into it, but don't let Wikipedia get used by him and his minions like this. Chrisrus (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already answered the earlier criticisms by formatting the citations and using outside articles in parts that aren't describing the mission of Raniere's organizations. I'm just trying to resolve this neutrality dispute, as I feel that is important for any Wikipedia page. So is there any way we can accomplish this?U21980 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So you consider self-promoting material gleamed from NXIVM’S own website neutral and unbiased, for real?Keyser Sözetigho (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You take many boasts out of context. You site the Times Union as you source” but the TU is only quoting NXIVM’s own website. This is a convoluted method to get your viewpoint across and violates the rules and integrity of Wiki. You know these stories are derogatory in nature but choose to hand pick favorable quotes taken out of all context while claiming fowl when I place them in the proper and correct contextLink1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC).

I think talk is cheap, I would rather look at specific examples that you feel show that I have violated the specific rules and integrity of Wiki. Of course, I would also ask that you reflect on some of the edits you have included to show that you are not in clear violation of the same rules you accuse me of violating. U21980 (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The most egregious examples of your edits guising over the many self-promoting attributes have been removed at least on this one. "By the age of 27, Raniere was already a member of Mensa, a high-IQ society with a minimum requirement at the one-in-a-million level. Raniere gained recognition for answering correctly all but two questions on a 48-question, self- administered test, in which it is stated that Raniere "moved up to the rarified one-in-10-million level." This comment came from a a 24 year old news story from the living section of the TU that can only be found at a NXIVM website.I wonder who told you to look there.I don;t for a minute believe you are unbiased or neutral.. [4]Link1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC).

I have basically answered some of these posts in the NPOV section, so in the event you would like to hear my response, I would suggest looking at that section U21980 (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The Mega Test

Oh I guess you forgot to reference this when you put in the mega test The Mega Test has been severely criticized by professional reviewers of psychological tests. That is from WikiLink1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

The mega test has been widely discredited and is rarely citedKeyser Sözetigho (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for your interest in checking into evidence that KR actually has a very high IQ. I haven't looked into it too much yet and at this moment am convinced that the evidence is sound, but I'm interested if you could expand on the ideas you've mentioned above. Chrisrus (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Details about citations

How is it that half of the information on citations is considered invalid by some users, but the rest as long as it presents negative viewpoints are valid? Shouldn't all information be either valid or invalid? U21980 (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"Keith Raniere conceptualized the Ethical Humanitarian Foundation, a private, not-for-profit foundation supporting endeavors that promote embracing humanity, developing ethics, and moving humankind towards a more noble civilization. In August 2008, he conceptualized the World Ethical Foundations Consortium (WEFC), a non-profit initiative dedicated to the building of a compassionate, ethical humanity." None of this is cited and should be removedLink1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

We are in agreement here Link, uncited information should be removed. On that same note, I did notice that the paragraph about the lawsuit against the financial planner also had uncited information at the end of it, concerning lawsuits in 4 states that was added the information actually within the source was added. Would you be in favor of deleting that information as well? U21980 (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Link's links

We are in agreement here Link, uncited information should be removed. On that same note, I did notice that the paragraph about the lawsuit against the financial planner also had uncited information at the end of it, concerning lawsuits in 4 states that was added the information actually within the source was added. Would you be in favor of deleting that information as well? U21980 (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I will be happy to post a link to the actual Lawsuit that was downloaded from Pacer a federal court info service and put on a public website.Just like I did with the AG's order.In fact I will be happy to link thousands of pages of NXIVM junk lawsuits.just say the wordLink1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

I'm not afraid of information that is adequately cited since that is the only kind of information that would be valuable in a page, so long as it is written with an eye towards NPOV. My concern is with the fact that information is being changed after it has been cited on the page to include facts not in the source material. Am I the only one expressing concern about these occurrences? U21980 (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Link, please provide the link you describe and anything else we could use to improve the article. Chrisrus (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Remember everyone that edits which are thrown into this page should hold up to the NPOV standard. I am sick of throwing out biased edits that are randomly thrown into the page. The goal with this page and any other page is to try and build consensus on edits that are thrown in here that really aren't minor edits. If you refuse to contribute to the discussion, there is nothing else I can do. Remember edits are about consensus, not a single person with a non-neutral agenda adding in edits.U21980 (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You take many boasts out of context and then edit to hide the real source of the material. You site the Times Union as you source” but the TU is only quoting NXIVM’s own website.Dito for your other "sources".They are not verifying the boasts but pointing out Rainier or his father made them.My father would tell you that I'm a great writer.But don't believe it,now if the local paper repeated that my father said I'm a great writer that doesn't make it any truer This is a convoluted method to get your viewpoint across and violates the rules and integrity of Wiki. You know these stories are derogatory in nature but choose to hand pick favorable quotes taken out of all context while claiming fowl when I place them in the proper and correct contextLink1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC).

I think talk is cheap, I would rather look at specific examples that you feel show that I have violated the specific rules and integrity of Wiki. Of course, I would also ask that you reflect on some of the edits you have included to show that you are not in clear violation of the same rules you accuse me of violating. Also, remember the reason that I made this section in the first place was due to the fact that you were unwilling to post anything on these discussion pages. I guess cherry-picking only negative information counts as being neutral.U21980 (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC) The 23 year story is the TU wasn't a news story it was in the living section and is what we vcall Puff.Thats right a puff piece.So who told you were to look for it? Just wondering?Link1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

The most egregious examples of your edits guising over the many self-promoting attributes have been removed have been removed at least on this one."By the age of 27, Raniere was already a member of Mensa, a high-IQ society with a minimum requirement at the one-in-a-million level. Raniere gained recognition for answering correctly all but two questions on a 48-question, self- administered test, in which it is stated that Raniere "moved up to the rarified one-in-10-million level." This comment came from a a 24 year old news story from the living section of the TU tat can only be found at a NXIVM website.I wonder who told you to look there.I don;t for a minute believe you are unbiased or neutral.. Link1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

Oh I guess you forgot to reference this when you put in the mega test "The Mega Test has been severely criticized by professional reviewers of psychological tests.[3]"

That is from WikiLink1914 (talk)

The mega test is a joke in scientific circles. I wonder if anyone has the (ISBN) for that famous but mysterious Guinness book of world recordsKeyser Sözetigho (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC). I just did a search in the online 1989 edition http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/service/searchEverything.kickAction?as=7691&keywords=1989 Nothing about KeithKeyser Sözetigho (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

So you are telling me that only newspapers available online are actually sources that should be used? Once again, I ask, have you pulled the actual Times-Union paper up for that date in order to check if I am contributing false information? The Times Union article's date is cited along with the author. You are a NY resident right Link? Can't you go to a local library, pull up the microform for that newspaper on that date and refute that Times-Union actually published that? U21980 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that if I contributed the same information from another site such as http://saratogaindecline.blogspot.com or a Rick Ross forum, you probably wouldn't have any qualms about the source of that information. To be fair, past edits seem to point that out. U21980 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok when you boast that Raniere scored so high on the mega test let me reference serious academic criticism of the mega test or doesn't that fit your agenda. I think that would for fill the role of NPOVLink1914Link1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

I guess actually going out and looking up the article would be a bit of work wouldn't it? Anyways, please feel free to add in any serious academic criticism of the Mega Test that you do find (none from blogs, forums, or first-hand accounts of course). I suspect that you will not be deleting the information already within the article since you obviously do not seem interested in pursuing the claim that I am listing false, NXIVM-tainted information. U21980 (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Another note about "self-promotion"

Hi everyone, I have been getting complaints about self-promotion occuring on the site and I agree it is a big problem, but the question is how can we help improve the material. Most of it is just copied and pasted into the page without the use of quotations and I think herein lies the problem. It sounds like a biased person wrote this material. This is especially problematic throughout the page, so in order to resolve this issue, we should try and quote things that are taken word for word out of these websites, in an attempt to let the reader make up his/her mind on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U21980 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• One of the problems is a lack of reliable sources and a wealth of spammy links. Another is the non-neutral language. A pressing problem right now is this edit-war engaged in by two or three editors. I suggest you all cool it down now and start discussing. U, our task is not to let the reader make up their own mind: our task is to write a neutral and informative article using reliable sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• 3RR warnings have been distributed to all involved editors (with thanks to User:Intoronto1125). Reverting again, by any of you, may result in a block. Start talking please. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And I'm tired of you running recruiting adversing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Link1914 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Link, that may or may not be what U is doing, but either way, stop reverting for now. U, you just broke 3RR and leave me no choice but to report it. I will also post a notice about this article on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, thank you for your help on this page. I really appreciate your edits and your willingness to post on this discussion board, something that Keyser and Link had not been doing until this morning. I am tired of the edit warring and do not want to continue it, I would rather work together and build consensus on this page which is something that is currently lacking.

Link1914, as for you it is finally good to hear from you. I am not affiliated in anyway with the individuals or corporations whose pages I am working on. I feel a sense of responsibility for them since I had been the one who had been contributing most of the information (not all). I did not create my entire account to add in non-neutral information. Can we please discuss further edits before throwing them out or adding them in?

So you consider self-promoting material gleamed from NXIVM’S own website neutral and unbiased, for real?Keyser Sözetigho (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone!U21980 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Keyser Sözetigho,every single article published in magazines or newspapers concerning NXIVM or Keith Raniere is highly unflattering many have “Cult” in the title. This cutting and pasting of sentences taken out of context is nothing but misleading, Intentional misleading I might addLink1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC).

Which part of the warnings didn't you all get?

I have reported BOTH of you for edit warring, and you are more than likely to be (temporarily) blocked as a result. I see you have also carried this conflict over to NXIVM. U, that's a nice note you placed there about discussing--I wish you had thought of that while making this and this edit. Link, you clearly crossed the line and here and here. This is a cooperative place and you should try and act appropriately. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course we can all get along aslong as wiki isn't used as a Pseudo-recruiting tool or as a self-promoting website for the unworldly boasts of Raniere. I am sorry that every news story of NXIVM is negative, cherry-picking sentences for quotes to protray it in a positive light isn’t neutrality it is propaganda

I concur, every single article published in magazines or newspapers concerning NXIVM or Keith Raniere is highly unflattering many have “Cult” in the title. This cutting and pasting of sentences taken out of context is nothing but misleading, Intentional misleading I might addLink1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC).

You take many boasts out of context. You site the Times Union as you source” but the TU is only quoting NXIVM’s own website. This is a convoluted method to get your viewpoint across and violates the rules and integrity of Wiki. You know these stories are derogatory in nature but choose to hand pick favorable quotes taken out of all context while claiming fowl when I place them in the proper and correct contextLink1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC).

They are not verifying the boasts but pointing out Rainier or his father made them.My father would tell you that I'm a great writer.But don't believe it,now if the local paper repeated that my father said I'm a great writer that doesn't make it any truer Link1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC).

Drmies once again, I apologize for my conduct, I guess sometimes these things can get out of hand. We obviously have a lot of discussing to do about any future edits that have to come up, though I am looking forward to it since Link and Keyser are finally utilizing the board. With that being said, just because the information listed on portions of the page are not negative, it does not mean it is propoganda.U21980 (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh I guess you forgot to reference this when you put in the mega test UB "The Mega Test has been severely criticized by professional reviewers of psychological tests.[3]"

That is from WikiLink1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

Well here is a thought, why not add in information with an eye towards NPOV, that isn't from forums, your first hand experience as a NY resident who has supposedly attended "controversial" meetings, or some blog? U21980 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok when you boast that Raniere scored so high on the mega test let me reference serious academic criticism of the mega test or doesn't that fit your agenda. I think that would for fill the role of NPOVLink1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

Gather Reliable Sources, summarize, assemble, post

I’ve collected all of the reliable sources I could find during two session of Googling, neither of which were very long. This is the first step, and we have plenty to work from here and many obvious ways forward. Next I think we should summarize them all and then work them into the text. Then all we’ll be doing is reporting what they say and then incorporating those facts into the article in a NPOV way.

The first part was a Google Scholar results for patents and trademarks and if he‘d published anything in any respected peer-reviewed journals. Then there were some legal journals, a few books, the Forbes article, The Daily Gazette, I’m not sure we have everything from the Times Union, we should get some more. The Saratogian needs to be searched for articles and such, they‘ve got all the neighborhood disputes. I think I have everything from New York Magazine right there, click on it! I found nothing at the New York Times, but you could try again. What statements can these be used to cite? We don’t need the Post, and it’s cut into that magazine-like “tabloid” shape, and look at the size of that font and the punning headlines! Give up on the Post, what do we need it for? We’ve got plenty more. Look below, please take those balls and run with them, forget the Post, we have Forbes Magazine already cited in the article and accepted by the opposition. Just give it a fair summary and stop arguing about the Post, it’s a waste of time when we haven’t even summarized the Forbes article.

OK, so the Metroland is also cut into the same tabloid shape. But it’s a weekly free paper in the category with Washington City Paper and seems a lot like the Village Voice to me. It’s a serious investigative journal with a good reputation and a very long history so it‘s no fly-by-night. At the very least everyone should at least read it because one notable thing about him is his suit against them for it. Google scholar has legal journals that refer to the case.

Stuff from the blogosphere won’t hold up to a challenge, UNLESS it’s a primary document that Ross or some such has collected there. Use the blogs and such to find links to primary things and then we’ll use the direct link, not the one to the blog page. Summarize it in a statement and hit the “Insert Reference” button and some bot or helpful Wikipedian will do the rest in terms of formatting.

We should probably get all this together here. We should probably leave a notice at the discussion page for NXIVM that you are doing this here instead of there but the same sources are going to be useful there as well. We can get things into shape on this discussion page before it goes in the article so there’ll be no more edit warring.

We also have enough here to do a short article on Nancy. I for one would like to read more about her hypnotherapy background. Chrisrus (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chrisrus, I like what you have said about actually trying to work together to get things into shape before it goes into the article, because frankly this edit warring is getting a bit tiring. I am especially concerned about how information is being added into the article up until this point and hope that if information is added in, that we can do so in a NPOV way like you stated. I guess it will have to wait for a while though.U21980 (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what we have to wait for. I have lots of RS sources linked to above that we could use. Could you tell us briefly what the Forbes article says for example? Then we can add statements to this article and use it to cite the statements. Have you read it? There are many more Reliable Sources above, please everyone stop bickering and get to work. Chrisrus (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there seems to be a lot of damage done to this page due to user Keyser and Link, the admin confirmed that they are indeed the same user (see topic below). We should be very cautious about things like this occurring on these pages. You are correct though, we should work together to make the edits.U21980 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing MacIntosh cites

The MacIntosh cites really are atrocious. Not only is that material not well supported outside of the biased commentary of Jeane MacIntosh, but it seems to come exclusively from that video, whose participants aren't clear. The video is only a few minutes long and starts mid-conversation. It looks as if it is bravado. No one has ever investigated NXIVM for allegedly killing people. It is conjecture and violates WP:BLP. I'm removing it. Talk to me when there are actual FBI or state or local authorities investigating or charging them.JamesChambers666 (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but M.Raniere is really "atrocious" as are all his superhuman claims. no one is desputing that it is Ranirere on the tape.I am ooen to changing the launguage but if you remove the story I will repost it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyser Sözetigho (talk • contribs) 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"No one has ever investigated NXIVM for allegedly killing people" you might be surprised to the answere of that one74.76.149.7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

74.76.149.7, please enlighten us to actual specifics. If he has been investigated in the past for such things, he has obviously not been charged for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U21980 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not yet that is. By the way why no name?Keyser Sözetigho (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

Innocent until proven guilty seems to indicate that until Raniere is charged with a crime, I should presume that he hasn't done it. Besides, I'm still waiting for the information that our friend with the IP address contributed. My guess is we will not be hearing from him again on the matter. I guess it is easy to throw up assertions that Raniere is being investigated without backing it up.

On a more serious note, I am really tired of this back and forth. It is obvious that Raniere and NXIVM elicit strong emotions from some, I for one do not see the need for constant bickering that has been occurring throughout these pages on recent days. Hopefully through time we can actually work together to try and build consensus. U21980 (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats easy stop using Wiki to glorify Raniere and treat his dubious claims as such and stop the cut and post edits from NXIVM owned websites.Now that was easy. Again all i want to do his to report what over 6 newspapers some international have claimed.you seem not to like blogs but take NXIVm's superhuman boasts as fact. getting back to the Guinness book of world records I find no such category in ANY edition for highest iq.How does one "Win" an award for category that doesn't existLink1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

JamesChambers: Thank you for starting the discussion on this topic, I am interested in seeing what happens with this source material considering the fact that Jeane has an open agenda against NXIVM and attacks them from a less than objective standpoint. Link1914:I am not using this page to glorify Raniere, unfortunately any attempt to not demonize the organization is seen as such. Here is what we will do about the edit, and this is one that we can work on together (imagine that). If the category "Highest IQ" is not in the source article, then I say lets get rid of it, it is not a big deal one way or another. My feelings about blogs aside, it isn't my rule that we shouldn't be citing from blogs, so if you have a problem with Wikipedia rules, I suggest you take it up with them. Once again, I am not trying to glorify Raniere or NXIVM, but am unwilling also to contribute edits solely with the intent of bashing Raniere or NXIVM, which is an agenda you seem to be pursuing.U21980 (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Link1914 is Keyser

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

• "I thought underhanded tactics like this were only practiced by supposed NXIVM members like myself?". As an outside editor to this mess, I must say these discussions are infected with a small group of editors, some who clearly think Raniere is a fraud, and others who consider him some kind of saint. If someone could list all the main players and their biases that would be helpful for figuring out what needs cleanup.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So as you know being employees of NXIVM, NXIVM critics only post from public portals. So link and Soze shared a portal that doesn’t stop the campaign for fairness and objectivity. Till next time the legion is strong NXIVMwatch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

I will edit for fairness,carefully cite my sources and if at the end of the day nxivm appears to be a cult, maybe thats because it is. NXIVMwatch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

The legion is strong?...okay. Well I look forward to working with you to try and make decent edits on this page. I would like a citation for the information you have already posted on here that indicate the following: "So as you know being employees of NXIVM, NXIVM critics only post from public portals." As far I can tell, I haven't seen any NXIVM employees roaming about, but I have seen plenty NXIVM critics (two - three if you count Link and Keyser as one person just one). So if these are baseless accusations that are being spread, I would appreciate it if we do not post them in the first place. With that being said, I and most everyone else here does not consider Raniere a saint, but I am interested in trying to present a picture of the man that does not portray every single detail of his life as being negative. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. U21980 (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The comment made above was not made with the intention of attacking you, I am just curious as to your response, that's all. Welcome to the page, hopefully we can work together to strengthen this page in a neutral manner.U21980 (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Conduct on This Talk Page

Hi everyone, I would like to address the conduct of those on this talk page. Keyser/Link as well as myself have not been nearly as civil as we could have been in discussing the various issues we had with each other and with the content of the page. I realize that sometimes these conflicts heat up over time and I just wanted to apologize for what we have been seeing on this page. Hopefully we can let go of our personal feelings on this matter and just work together, build consensus, and make edits on the page that will help to improve its quality for other readers. Thanks for reading this message. U21980 (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What the sources say

Enough of that stuff. DO NOT ENGAGE THEM IN POINTLESS CONVERSATION. It only stands between what is and what should be: a good article reporting what the Reliable Sources have to say about this referent. Please, anyone, select any of these links below and get to work. Pick one of these many WP:RS reliable sources and report back here with a brief matter-of-fact summary based roughly on this model:

This Reliable Source is (legal journal, patent, newspaper article, of whatever it is) it's from this place on this date and it says the following "Keith Reniere eats toast for breakfast" (or whatever it happens to say). I've gathered plenty of things here below. Look at them and tell us what each is and what it says. Next we'll assemble what we've got into coherent text, and then when it's ready we'll put it in the article. It's not hard and it's fun and it's interesting and will be great when it's done and maybe even very important. So quiet with all that distractions and get down to it. What does (the Forbes Article, for example) say? Scroll down a bit, choose one and let us know what it says, already. I've arranged everything in sections to keep it in order and everything.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 04:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

An article from New York Magazine calling it "a cultlike organization"

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/10/all_about_nxivm_the_cultlike_o.html. This [1] article is from New York Magazine. It's entitled "All About NXIVM, the Cultlike Organization With Ties to Albany". So that's another major local magazine to call it that, so we can use this link to cite expantion of the scope of the statement about the Times Union to "...and New York Magazine. Please see what other statements you can use it to cite. Keep it up! Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Forbes magazine calls it "a cult" and gives details

A gold mine! Have at it! Chrisrus (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC) 2006:

1. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/088.html
2. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0724/044a.html

Also mentioned in "suits in the news" in 2010 http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/088.html Chrisrus (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC) More from Forbes magazine in 2010: http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/03/29/the-bronfmans-and-the-cult/ Chrisrus (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

http://metroland.net/back_issues/vol29_no32/features.html

Macleans

...is a very famous and respectable Canadian business journal. Here is an article they have written: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/09/how-to-lose-100-million/. Please read it and then come back here and tell us what it says. Chrisrus (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Google Scholor, which pretty much only returns reliable sources, yields the following results for "Keith Raniere":

Articles Excluding Patents search:

1. A book whose author thanks Keith on the acknowledgement page. Nothing useful for this article, but it's interesting to know that at least one respected serious scholar is a fan.
2. Someone has cited a "K. Raniere" as a co-author of a paper written in Spanish. This is it: [2]. I haven't looked into it, feel free to do so. I wonder if it's him.

Conclusion: It looks as if no peer-reviewed academic journals even mention him, must less cite him. No one published a paper by him.

Articles Including Patents search:

Here I need help. I don't understand why so many of his patents seem to be repeats: doubles, tripples, more, the same things over and over. This Google search yielded 48 sources. I say his patents, but some belong to him at least in part.

1. One is an intelligent swithcing system for voice and data. Many repeat links for this. I guess they renew it each year. Should probably be mentioned in the article that he is one of four people who own the patent on this thing. Or maybe it's not notable enough, or not what he's notable for. I'm stumped. What is this thing, and does anyone use it? Is it important at all in engineering or computers or what is it? We need to bring in an uninvolved expert to describe this thing he's invented and tell us if it's important or not. Chrisrus (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Free Patents Online lists an "Entrance-exchange structure and method" for him. Quote "

A entrance-exchange structure and method of execution thereof, comprising a house and an activity of uncertain outcome (e.g., game of chance, game of skill, etc.) that is entered by a participant (e.g., a participant such as a player). The house pays the participant a takehome in relevant scrip, or cash and relevant scrip, for an activity entered into by the participant, based on betting by the participant. An existing outside vendor may exchange the participant's scrip at a scrip-to-items exchange rate for at least one item provided by the outside vendor. The outside vendor may exchange the relevant scrip with the house for cash at an outside-vendor scrip-to-cash exchange rate. The house may also function as a vendor with whom the participant may exchange relevant scrip for cash at a house-vendor scrip-to-cash exchange rate. The relevant scrip is a virtual currency that may be generated by the entrance-exchange structure.

This is truely bizzare, everyone, get a load of this "thing"? I'm I misreading it, or is it a new strange sort of casino game? Very wierd and interesting. Kudoes to anyone who can identify what this is, what category of thing, so we can even start looking for someone to ask to summarize it. Chrisrus (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

1. This sleep management thing: [[3]]
2. This "Method and Apparatus for Improving Performance:

   The present invention relates generally to a training method and apparatus for improving performance.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0247098.html

Now this is frankly wierd. It's a complicated machine that helps you obtain abilities while you sleep? Is it a notable thing at all, and how can we find out? We want to say what it is that he has "invented" here, and whether it ever came to anything.

1. An "ATHLETIC COURSE COVERING SYSTEM": "The invention relates generally to a covering system for athletic courses. A movable framework straddles the athletic course and serves as a support for a cover. Inside, lighting and climate may be controlled. Also, possibly as a training aid or to facilitate competitive events, a timing system and/or PA system may be incorporated. Among the possible athletic courses suitable for covering are running courses, in-line skating courses, cycling courses, etc. The invention also includes a method of operating an outdoor exercise course."http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2008/0006315.html

I don't even know which of these things are patents he has and which are applications for patents he would like to have but doesn't have at least not yet. Who knows about this stuff. And has anyone ever used this track covering system? Chrisrus (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Google Scholar Legal Docs search

Do this. Google Scholar the Legal Docs that mention his name or NXIVM:

1. Three suits of Rick Ross or the Ross institute Vs. NXIVM
2. Rhodes VS. Consumer Buyline
3. NXIVM vs Sutton.

I know about the first two. I don't know that I've ever heard of the Sutton case. Chrisrus (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Google Books

A search for him on Google books yields nine results.

1. Two books that were co-written by a "Keith Raniere". [4] Both seem to be on the topic of mythology or philosophy or some such, I'm not sure. He seems to have co-written exactly two published books in his lifetime so far, and is the sole author of none. We should look into these books and include this fact if it checks out in the article, unless the books are not notable enough. It might at least cite calling him an "author". Chrisrus (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC) (Update: These do seem to be two books co-authored by him, but aparantly no one cared because it's really hard to find anyone with a copy to sell, no reviews, no citations, no sign of a publisher of any note having any interest in them or of them having any impact on the world. See if you can find copies and tell us what wisdom he tried to share with the world but has aparently been roundly ignored, if you are curious, but I don't think they are notable enough to include in the article.) Chrisrus (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Score a book about NXIVM! See ISBN 6132287442, 9786132287441, by Lambert M Surhone, Mariam T Tennoe, Susan F Henssonow, see here: [5]. It doesn't say much about it, not even how to get a hold of it. I don't know what it even is, really, but please let's look into it. Help me. (Update: This turned out to be a company that that binds Wikipedia articles and sells them. It's sort of a scam. There is still no sign of any real book on this topic.) Chrisrus (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Four books that talk about the legal cases involving him: [6] and three more, see [7]. This
4. Volume 178 of the collected articles of Forbes Magazine, which includes the article The Bromfmans and the Cult, already included in the sources but not summarized there. Read it and report back here! Please?
5. The aforementioned business book in which he's thanked on the acknowledgement page. Might be a lead we could follow. Chrisrus (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In conclusion, I don't think we can safely call him a writer or an author of any note, we might want to see his two book if they allow us to cite something about his philosophy but until someone writes a book about him, let's concentrate on the articles. Chrisrus (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Were you able to find out any more information about these books? U21980 (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Some! Number two turned out to be nothing, see VDM Publishing for a full explanation of how our own article NXIVM got it's own ISBN number.

Number three is excellent about NXIVM v. Ross and it's significance for the law and society. Read page 230-231 of The Legal Environment of Business and then write up a section on that chapter and put it in the article. Here it is, free on Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=8ZvaVXT1n3IC&pg=PA231&dq=%22Keith+Raniere%22&hl=en&ei=QFG7TfuEK5DUgQeIxKnABQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Keith%20Raniere%22&f=false]. Have at it!

Number four we already have below directly from the Forbes cite, so we don't need it.

Number five is a book called "Everything I know about business I learned from a duck", and is a real published book about how to have business success. It has nothing to do with him or it per se, but the author, a legit successful guy named Tom Porter acknowleges him on the acknowlegement page. Which is not useful for the article, but if he could be tracked down and quoted in a RS that we can quote saying how great KR and NXIVM are, it might prove that there are people who the program worked for. That's a long process though, but if you'd like to contact him, here's the book in question. Here it is: [8] Chrisrus (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

VANITY FAIR

"The Heiresses and The Cult"

By Suzanna Andrews

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/11/bronfman-201011?currentPage=1

In a rather recent (November, 2010) five-page, VANITY FAIR article, NXIVM, an organization said to be founded by Keith Raniere and based on his theories, is described a "cult." According to this source, Raniere has also lost nearly $200 million funded by 2 wealthy sisters, who are among his followers and rank highly in the organization. Raniere allegedly spent the funds in commodities trading and real estate ventures. The losses occurred prior to the 2008 economic collapse or decline in either market. The article also examines the "cult's" role in the heiresses' family dynamics, and suggests NXIVM and Raniere are using such to take advantage of the young women and rob them of their inheritance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairsfair7 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask, if anyone is receiving donations from members or otherwise, is that really as noteworthy as other material we could include in the page? While the article may "suggest" that NXIVM and Raniere "take advantage of the young women", the Bronfman's are grown ups and can decide to contribute to NXIVM or not. Besides Raniere "allegedly" spent funds in commodities trading and real estate ventures. What kind? Who knows. Was it relevant to NXIVM or its goals? I'm not sure. Either way there are a lot of suggestions and allegations being tossed around that are not really being examined. On that note since the page was locked, from my recollection, there was already information included in the page regarding this controversy. Anyways, I look forward to hearing your response! U21980 (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Another local paper calls it "A cultlike organization"

Here another area newspaper, the Daily Gazette, http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2009/mar/29/0329_weaver/, calls it "a cultlike organization". So it's not just the times union, it's just NYMagazine, but also Schenectady's Daily Gazette. Chrisrus (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we use this source? Are op-ed's normally legitimate?Tomohawkmama (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a good question. I guess I don't know the answer, because there might be some quideline that says in some words "no op-eds". But I think we could use this to cite the statement "the Daily Gazette has expressed this opinion about Keith Raniere in an Op-ed", and if we did it that way, it wouldn't be our POV, it'd be us reporting that of the D.G., so it'd be a statement of objective fact on our part. Or maybe if we said that it was the opinion not as the opinion of the D.G., it's at least the opinion of the author of the op-ed. Also, some statements of fact might be expressed in an Op-ed in the course of stating an opinion. For example, if that link stated that he was 5'9, it wouldn't be their opinion, it'd be a statement of fact that just happened to come from an op-ed. That's how I personally see it.

Why, have you managed to read it? I haven't. Please, if you have, don't hold back, tell us all about it. This is the discussion page and therefore not subject to the same rules as the mainspace. What does this op-ed say about Keith Raniere? Chrisrus (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have tried accessing this source to try and read its contents but was also unable to access it, since it seems to be protected except for registered users (though I'm not sure if it is free to register). Are there any specific guidelines about op-eds? From what I have learned about Wiki in using it recently, it seems a little strange to cite. Though of course we are here to hold a discussion, so if anyone knows more, please let me know U21980 (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

More from The Daily Gazette

Hey, I was wrong about The Daily Gazette, Schenectady's newspaper covering the capital region, a great newspaper IMHO, though we don't get it here at the house; we get The Times Union. What I was wrong about was this: The default search at their website is set to search only the site itself. You've got to click "archives (1997-present) if you want to see all the news stories and such that they've written about him and it. Try it yourself, it's pretty interesting. I did and this is what happened. I got lots more hits; twenty-five to be exact. The problem is, you can't really read them completely without paying. They have a pretty good system of summarizing them, though, so that you can tell what each one is and what it basically is about. They produce ten hits per page and will sell full articles at package rates or at $2.00 a piece. Chrisrus (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Village Voice

http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-10-16/news/secret-agent-schmuck/full

Funny, some of you should mention the "Village Voice" because they were on top of the Keith Raniere, NXIVM story early on. In this 2007 article, the Voice reveals that the "cult" hired self-proclaimed, Israeli, super spy, Juval Aviv's firm, "Interfor," to perform a "sting operation," masterminded by Raniere, to frame an outspoken cult critic and interventionist, Rick Ross. Fairsfair7 (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for summarizing this article. I'd edit the summary like this:

Group text! Feel free to edit:

In a (exact date) 2007 article, the Village Voice reported that "court document allege that, in 2003, the "cult" had signed an "intelligence contract" with self-described "Iraeli super spy" Juval Aviv's firm Interfor to help Raniere to perform a "sting operation" to frame anti-cult activist Rick Ross.

The above is group text, feel free to edit!

I can't imagine that the Keith Raniere, NXIVM story consists solely of such events. Besides the article states that "Court documents allege that in 2003, Aviv signed an intelligence contract with the NXIVM Corporation" (my emphasis added). We have to be careful in included edits that come off as sounding like a biased piece in a tabloid magazine. While you call Rick Ross a cult critic and interventionist, others call him "controversial" like the Village Voice or a criminal (his Wiki page includes details about both negative charges). Once again, the reason I bring any of this up is that we have to be careful about any edits we toss in. I have nothing personally against either Raniere or Ross, but lets at least try to make the edits on a neutral basis. U21980 (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, again U21980. (Really like your monicker, btw, I'm a huge U2 fan.) OK, if the Raniere and NXIVM's story does not, surely not, consist "solely of such events," what else is there? Show and tell us what they've done to impact humanity in a positive manner. Rather than, I might add, simply worshiping Mr. Raniere's alleged and dubious, high I.Q. score on a self-administered test, and promoting all their (his) lip service to advancing humanity through gambling formulas, Ayn Rand philosophies, Scientology-esk courses and the like.

I am intrigued by the Dalai Lama aspect. But, what I've read indicates that the Dalai Lama admonished "transparency" during his Albany visit. Perhaps, not that I would dare speak for him, but just perhaps, he thought that with all the resources available to NXIVM, they might be able and willing to put themselves on a path toward really enlightening humanity. Instead, it seems, again, just from what I've read, they are only hell-bent on snuffing out any criticism, keeping their agendas hidden (why, for example, don't I find Mr. Raniere extolling more than his boast about having people killed for his or their beliefs, on you tube?...or anywhere else? And, why are they spending a fortune in litigation to gag their critics? Those amounts could feed thousands of hungry families.) So, where's the beef? Serve it up, if ya got it, and I'm sure some of us would be happy to write about it. Peace. :) 108.83.106.184 (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We'll I am glad that we seem to have the same taste in music my friend :) I apologize for not getting back to you guys sooner about this stuff. I am not sure if the post above is supposed to indicate that I supposedly worship Raniere's IQ (which I don't), but what I am arguing for is a balanced approach towards this page in regards to the organization and individual. About Raniere's IQ, Since Ronald K. Hoeflin (the creator of the test that Raniere took) has confirmed Raniere's test result, I do not see a reason to argue against it. Certainly if his methods were controversial, it would have been at least mentioned been mentioned in his wiki page. Also, I wonder if you can expand on your comment about Raniere's "Ayn Rand" philosophies and "Scientology-esk" courses.

Now in response to your comments about the Dalai Lama, I'm sure he didn't speak solely about transparency when he made the speech. Perhaps we can try to locate a transcript of that particular speech to see the statement in context (as well analyze the content of other portions of the speech). Arguing that money spent on litigation could have been spent to feed families seems to be an attempt to make NXIVM the bad guy. I'm no law expert, but if they had legitimate legal grounds to take another person/organization to court, how does it make that a bad action? Along the same lines, I wonder if the same criticism that is placed with NXIVM for that could also be placed with other organizations who could be spending more money feeding families instead of using it on company lawyers.U21980 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Also I am not sure what is you are referring to when you are stating that they keep their agendas hidden. I look forward to discussing this further with you!U21980 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute

This wikipedia article, NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute, exists. Just thought I'd let you know. Chrisrus (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NXIVM_Corp._v._The_Ross_Institute

Wow, thanks Chrisrus, this is a breakthrough. I'll be up late reading the case tonight. 1st Amendment Rights, prevail! YES. Only reason I haven't checked out of the Country just yet. 108.83.106.184 (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think what it means for us, maybe among other things, is that we can use any WP:RS that describes NXIVM/Executive Success/Rational Inquiry based on the study of the documents that Ross got "in bad faith" (i.e.: by infiltrating the organization and signing in bad faith a non-disclosure agreement. The way I figure it is, if the Supreme Court says that the public's right to know what's going on with this group trumps the somewhat underhanded, spyish, investigative-reporter-posing-as-someone-he's-not-type of way he got a hold of their training manuals and such. I figure, we Wikipedians also have the same right to tell the public these things, if the Supreme Court says so, that Rick Ross or the university psychologists he gave them to to review and write up their opinion of whether it's brainwashing or not. Thanks for your help and let us know if you agree with me about what that means for us, and whether you have been able to find the papers written by the experts that Ross got to review their methods. Chrisrus (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Chrisrus. I do agree with you, no matter how Ross got the docs, the Supreme Court decision rules. It's all on the Rick Ross website, www.rickross.com, including the psychological expert findings defining what NXIVM is about; basically, a brainwashing cult, and it's still there because of the Supreme Court's 1st Amendment Rights finding (a landmark ruling) that allowed Ross to investigate the group and post whatever info he came up with, no matter what, perhaps, underhanded methods were used to obtain them. As we know, Ross was fighting fire with fire and he came under some NXIVM ire along the way. The Juval Aviv sting operation wherein they tried to, at least, frame Ross if not throw him overboard from a yacht in the Carribean Sea, is the still subject to pending litigation. I mean, how much crazier can this be?! Fairsfair7 (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to understand the logic here, so if one person uses "underhanded methods" then it is okay for another person to do it?U21980 (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder also the validity in using the documents based on the methods of which they are gathered. Since the methods were already controversial anyways, why use it? Let me also frame an additional problem: If Raniere hired psychologists to write expert findings regarding what NXIVM is about, would it be considered valid to post? U21980 (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Court apparently wondered the same thing, because they decided to take the case. They decided that it's OK for someone to leave an organization with a document that they'd signed a non-discloser agreement never to disclose, and then go ahead and give it to a university professor so that he could check it out and let the public know if, in their expert opinion, whether this organization is using some kind of cult mind-control hypnosis methods to control people, or not, and that those findings could be released to the public through media such as Wikipedia, as it is the public's right to know if this is a legitimate business or some kind of dangerous group that we should look out for; that Constitution of the United States of America's First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech and of the Press trumps the laws envoked by a non-discloser agreement. So the way I see it, it's not for us to second-guess the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the country where the servers that house Wikipedia stand humming away. That's why the Supremes they get paid the big bucks, to make difficult calls like this for us all, so we don't have to. Therefore our duty is clear. We need to find the report which experts wrote after reading the NXIVM training manual and summarize his opinion of the Rational Inquiry "technology" that NXIVM uses.

Agreed? If so, get out there and FIND THAT REPORT and summarize it here together with us so that we can, at that point, transfer it to the article.Chrisrus (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't personally read through the SC decision to have seen what they have said exactly, but I am still a bit confused as to the specifics of what has actually occurred. I will be looking at the decision in that specific case soon to see if I can get some clarification about the entire situation, but just to reiterate: The SC affirms that the documents were taken in violation of a non-disclosure agreement, given to university professors, who then legally published results based off of documents obtained illegally? I am just a little concerned about this situation though I am hoping that after reading the decision, hopefully I can understand the reasoning a bit better. U21980 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Reiterating my concern about such resources are a few statements expressed by Dr. Hochman in his affadavit in the case. You can find the comments on page 4: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/2:2006cv01051/187115/288:

The Hochman Affidavit indicates that Dr. Hochman was unaware that the materials provided by Mr. Ross contained any trade secret information or that such materials had been procured in violation of any sort of confidentiality obligation. Dr. Hochman now asserts the following: 5. I now understand that the Protected Materials given to Mr. Ross by Ms. Franco were confidential and proprietary in nature to ESP . . . 6. Mr. Ross asked me to use the Protected ESP Materials to prepare a written report . . .Based upon the fact that Mr. Ross told me he was going to use the report for the singular purpose of persuading the Student that he was under the undue influence of the ESP organization I concluded that Mr. Ross believed that ESP was a harmful organization (the “Hochman Assumption”). 8. In preparing my Report, I relied almost entirely on the Protected Materials provided to me by Mr. Ross. I also utilized some materials then available from the ESP website. My knowledge of these items informed my Report. Mr. Ross never used the name “NXVIM” in his conversations with me and nowhere within the Protected materials or the ESP website was NXIVM mentioned. . . 9. The Hochman Assumption no doubt played a role in causing me to write the Report in a manner to support a finding that ESP was harmful and to incorporate the negative views and strong bias I concluded that Mr. Ross personally held regarding ESP. . .My report was based almost exclusively on information Mr. Ross provided. 10. I never intended the Report to represent a scientific or objective study of the ESP organization or its programs. I did not attempt to conduct the sort of objective study, investigation or analysis that would have been necessary if it were a true scientific study. . .

Aff. ¶¶ 5, 6, 8, 9,10. Dr. Hochman also indicates that he executed and delivered a Cease and Desist letter to Mr. Ross in or on September, 2006 requesting that the report and any references to the report be removed from the website.

Also of further interest is the paragraph from the same court document:

Nancy T. Ammerman, Ph.D. (“Dr. Ammerman”) conducted a report, Report to the Justice and Treasury Department Regarding Law Enforcement Interest with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas (the “Ammerman Report”), that Plaintiffs allege now holds relevance as a consequence of the recent Hochman Affidavit. The Ammerman Report states that “The [Cult Awareness] Network and Mr. Ross have a direct ideological (and financial) interest in arousing suspicion and antagonism against what they call ‘cults.’” Further, the report indicates that “[a]lthough these people often call themselves ‘cult experts,’ they are certainly not recognized as such by the academic community.” Moreover, “Mr. Ross and any ex-members he was associated with should have been seen as questionable sources of information[,] [h]aving no access to information from the larger social science community[.]”

Let me know your thoughts after reviewing the material above. U21980 (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with it as it seems to be an WP:RS, but it seems it might be better added to the article Rick Ross or the article NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute rather than here, as it appears to be facts only tangentally related to the referent of this article. Chrisrus (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I was wrong before. I'm sorry, when I said "supreme court" I was wrong. It was actually United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. I would like to know if they are appealing to the Supreme Court, and if they have, has it responded. Chrisrus (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss any possible inclusion into the article of the material above. Anyways, it is a bit confusing to know what is really going on with the case. All I have been able to discern is that the case is still pending at the moment. U21980 (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Request to unprotect this article

Please that's enough "cooling off time". We have work to do here. Chrisrus (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the cooling off will be finished by tomorrow thankfully. I just hope we can maintain this open atmosphere of discussion after the page is unprotected. U21980 (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

New York Observer

http://www.observer.com/2010/daily-transom/poor-little-rich-girls

In this August, 2010, article, Maureen Tkacik, observes how the Bronfman heiresses (to the Seagram booze fortune) continue to be influenced by Keith Raniere and NXIVM into spending their fortune on lawsuits, private investigators and subversive methods attempting to trounce their critics and any criticisms levied against them. The heiresses also, according to the article, sponsored a visit by the Dalai Lama to Albany, NY, where NXIVM is headquartered, in an apparent effort to endorse the "cult" and reaffirm one of the heiresses, Sara Bronfman's, purported visions, as sustained by Raniere, that she, personally, had called His Holiness to NYC years prior.

Fairsfair7 (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This edit seems a bit harsh to ever include within the text of the page. U21980 (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic Change

Speaking of the Dalai Lama's visit, it is curious that he would accept the Bronfman's invitations with the supposed harsh criticism that he gave NXIVM affiliates that Keyser always tried to point out. I would think that if the Dalai Lama really felt that the organization was up to no good, he simply wouldn't have accepted the invitation. U21980 (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, U21980. I did not see the citations I've, I believe fairly and accurately, summarized on the currently locked page. Perhaps, I jumped in too late. But, it seems to me that what's most irksome to onlookers, certainly to myself, is that the citations that were originally noted and summarized were taken entirely out of context and presented as positive press on Raniere and NXIVM when they were not, not at all, if read in whole.

It seems to me that a huge part of the problem is that neither Mr. Raniere nor the group appear to respond to the media with their side of the story prior to publication. Yet, post-publication, they do not hesitate to rephrase and/or quote those sources out-of-context, to make them APPEAR flattering and biased toward themselves, as exemplified by what I read previously and what remains on the wiki-war-torn page. Plus, it seems that they're picking on only individual critics, who may, in fact, be ill-equipped or much lesser so (as one critic pointed out) to defend themselves, while their big-time media foes go unanswered and unscathed. AND, misquoted.

I am a journalist but have not written about NXIVM, as yet. At this point, I don't suppose I ever will as I like to represent both sides of the story in anything, I, personally, write-up and I am well aware NXIVM does not talk to the media. I'm certain there are many more of us out here, who would be happy to publish more balanced views on Raniere or NXIVM, if they ever choose to open up but, in the meantime, what they've got is what they've got on record and it's not right to take it out of context.

If you're with them, you might mention that an ounce of prevention IS worth a pound of cure. And, in the case of what's already been published, the ONLY cure, no matter how much energy they throw at it, is to move on and demonstrate to the media and the world that they are and are becoming what they say they are: An ETHICAL group of individuals dedicated to service to humanity, not, apparently, one person (Mr. Raniere), who, most obviously, cannot admit to any HUMAN failings. Fairsfair7 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

U21980, you say "I would think that if the Dalai Lama really felt that the organization was up to no good, he simply wouldn't have accepted the invitation". As I seem to recall, that's exactly what happened. The Dalai Lama canceled a visit here, and the explanatin was he was upset over negative publicity surrounding the organization sponsoring the event and its founder, Keith Raniere. At first he accepted, but then his people said "you don't want to be associated with this guy, Mr. Lama" and Dalai was all like "Oh no? Why not, what've you heard?" and they went "Here, here's a three-ring-binder full of everything in the respected media about him" and he read it for a bit and said "Ya know, you're right. I guess I won't go to Albany if it means giving legitimacy to him and it", and so he didn't. It's that what happened? I swear that's how I remember it. Am I wrong? What ever happened with the Dali Lama thing? We need to get this right and get it in the article. Chrisrus (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chrisrus, the Dalai Lama did, finally, appear in Albany after all the ruckus you describe. But, it looks like he only did so after the Bronfman sisters, Raniere and Salzman, appeared in Dharmasala, India (the Tibetan-Government-in-Exile's outpost) with a hefty donation, some sources say it was, at least, a cool mil. The NXIVM contingent flew in to "Little Tibet" on the sister's leer jet, the one they've since sold to keep up with their NXIVM donations toward, principally, legal bills. The local papers, Metroland and The Albany Times Union reported on it. Sorry, too work worn right now to look up the URL's but it's there. Also, the blog, saratogaindecline, has some interesting things to say about an alleged, romantic relationship between Sara Bronfman and a prominent, Tibetan Buddhist monk she met in Sun Valley, Idaho, who's now, supposedly residing in style nearby in Albany. It's just sickening, if true. But I have reason to believe it may well be. Read for yourself, please. Fairsfair7 (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

We have had a problem with this Saratogaindecline blog before (they have made unfounded accusations about me and other users on here) and have posted things that are clearly copyright violations (NXIVM's twelve rules), so that considered, I would be cautious about some of the information posted there naturally. Anyways with that said, my point still stands. The Dalai Lama still showed up and spoke. It is doubtful that if he truly believed that it was a bad organization, that he would have even showed up. The claim that he only did so for money isn't surprising, Sarah Palin also took money to speak at a school, as well as Snooki, so what is interesting or new about that? U21980 (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi U21980. Re: The Dalai Lama: I'm simply responding to your apparent proposition that His Holiness' visit to Albany, NY, sponsored by a NXIVM organization and/or NXIVM leaders, can be interpreted as his sanctioning of the organization. Others, including the local Saratoga blog and the local Albany papers, have proposed and PUBLISHED their own theories as to why the Dalai Lama appeared after his initial refusals. Those alleged theories, as I cited, being monetary and an ongoing friendship between one of the Dalai Lama's advisers and NXIVM leader, Sara Bronfman. Personally, I PREFER to believe the reports or proposals that the Dalai Lama had a message for NXIVM re: transparency. But I do know, personally, that not all, in fact few, of the Dalai Lama's advisers are cut from the same cloth as he. And, that's about all I should say about it publicly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairsfair7 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I appreciate the response Fairsfair7, but to be honest, there is a reason why you won't see Sarah Palin, for example, speaking at the Democratic National Convention. The fact that the Dalai Lama spoke at NXIVM does imply that he didn't see the organization as being as "evil" as some others may see the organization. Along those lines, we have all this attention being given to one sentence that he said about transparency, but the problem is, we do not know what context it was stated in, nor do we know what else he spoke about. So, if that single sentence was all that was said about transparency, then I have a feeling that his message is being misrepresented in accounts that emphasize that particular sentence.

Anyways, just following Wiki rules for verifiable sources (my personal feelings aside about Saratoga Blog that makes false accusations about others such as myself), for reasons stated above, Saratoga Blog really isn't citeable for this article regardless of what theories or information they present. Thanks for the post Fairsfair7, I look forward to hearing your response. U21980 (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Macintosh Controversy

Considering the nature of the NYPost, as well as McIntosh's apparent personal vendetta against the organization, it is even questionable that the controversy should be included at all. Even so, if we do decide to keep it I argue that we should try to merge the format of the edit to include the details about it that are included in the NXIVM page. Let me know what you think!U21980 (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The page is still a mess and I'd like to resolve some of the outstanding issues U raise before posting there. What do you mean by "apparent personal vendetta" on the part of McIntosh? What is Raniere's explanation for the videotaped comments about having people killed? Please source it.

I'm also confused about the I.Q. test(s). Was there more than one? Currently the page reads as though several repetitive references are being made to the same, self-administered Hoeflin test. Nor can I find any others in which Raniere participated. I'm taking it, perhaps wrongly, that the Hoeflin test was what singularly put Raniere in the Menza Society and Guiness Book of World Records for highest I.Q. Also, please source the Guiness reference directly. Thanks. Fairsfair7 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have had the opportunity of reading several articles by McIntosh, and it doesn't seem to have been written with the spirit of objective reporting, examine the tone of the article referenced as a prime example of that. If you would like answers as to the possible motivations of that statement, or others made in the video which include comments where Raniere states that he has been a victim of violence from others, you may want to look elsewhere though, I'm not a fan of conjecturing as to the reasons why such alleged statements are even being made. With that said, the information about the IQ test is cited from two different sources with the second citation being used within the background section (as we can expect some material to be fleshed out in greater detail in other sections). U21980 (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Metroland Article

You've gotta see this: http://metroland.net/back_issues/vol29_no32/features.html. This has so much article-worthy stuff I don't know where to begin. Please read and tell us what you read. Chrisrus (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Chrisrus- Is this site considered a violation of WP:NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomohawkmama (talk • contribs) 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I understand this question. NPOV refers to the character of the article in the mainspace. I think of the Metroland as an WP:RS, but there is the fact that the paper itself is cut into a tabloid-shape. But it's not a daily newspaper like the NYPost, it's a weekly that reminds me most of the Washington City Paper or the Villiage Voice. It's got some good journalistic reputation, a somewhat left-wing bent, but it has ads for escort services and such. But I don't know anyone who dismisses the Metroland as a trash organization as far as it's investigative reporting goes.

Why, have you read it? Don't hold back, tell us what it says about him. Does it give it's own POV, or just report that of others? Did they seem at least to try to get Reniere and whoever else might be appropriate to give it balance. (I'd be really surprised to learn that KR had deigned to talk to mere mortals). But again, do tell, what does Metroland have to say, or explain why you feel that it would violate NPOV to use it to cite stuff in the article. Chrisrus (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I had read this article in passing, but to be fair, it doesn't seem to be written in as objective a tone as others we may be able to use. It is easy to only interview detractors of an organization but the statement of the article: "To some, it is a useful training program; to others, a cult. Either way, NXIVM and founder Keith Raniere remain embroiled in controversy" seems to indicate that there is more than one opinion on this organization that is not being represented in the content of the article. This is my main issue with it though I welcome any thoughts on this matter. I am really glad that we are able to discuss these issues in a civil manner, so thank you Chrisrus and Tomohawkmama U21980 (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've yet to see one mainstream news article conclude that the organization is legit.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

you're right, but Metroland isn't mainstream. Tomohawkmama (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Raniere's Orgnaizations

Should we include information on some of the organizations Raniere's has founded? I came accross this list on his personal website. http://www.keithraniere.com/organizations.php Tomohawkmama (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I donno, are we using people's personal websites? Is there any independant confirmation that these organizations exist? Chrisrus (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

We used to have that same list on this Wiki page but it was removed. I actually do not see a problem adding it back, but we can try working together to find as many resources and flesh it out, unlike when a user copied and pasted the list from that site onto Wikipedia. Would there be an issue in trying to do that? U21980 (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's ok in my opinion to use it for some things. As long as we say clearly that it's from his own site. The way these sources are shaping up, it's prettty much universally negative, so for balance I guess we should let him defend himself via his own website. Sad we have to do that for him, why doesn't he just call the Times Union or some such and give his side of the story so that they'll have his side of things to print? I don't know what color your sash is, but if you have a chance to say this to him it would really help you out in your endevours here if he'd say something in his own defense when reporters call saying that they're doing a report on him and would like to know if he'd like to comment or to give his side. It's pretty sad when we Wikipedians have no where but his own website to go to hear his side when he could've easily had it printed in something WP:RS. Chrisrus (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start work on that. Please give feedback when it's ready.Tomohawkmama (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Merge this article w/ NXIVM

I suggest that we merge this article w/ the article NXIVM. Chrisrus (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting suggestion, but I think that there is some value in keeping the pages separate as information that could be more pertinent here may not be as important in the NXIVM page. I think we should definitely talk about the possibility though and see how it shapes up!U21980 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chrirus on the merger. After reading the Supreme Court decision I think it can be reduced to: Unfair gain does not violate "fair use."

BTW, no, U21980, I do not think "everyone should do it" or that the Court is sanctioning such methods to obtain materials. I think it's just saying that however the materials were obtained, underhanded or not (mind you), they were fairly used in the analysis or critique on the Ross website.

Seems to me, again, that NXIVM and Raniere, et. al. do not comprehend how to address critical inquiry and critics apart from trying to clobber them in court.

PICK UP THE PHONE, EMAIL IT, TWEET IT, RESPOND, SOMEHOW. And remember, the media cannot transmit or quote innuendo or telepathic messages...Karen. lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairsfair7 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I state my objection to the merger of the two pages since there is something to be said for having a separate NXIVM page and a separate Raniere page. Is there something that is being lost by having two separate pages? If a reader is interested in learning about Raniere, a wiki link is provided on the NXIVM page and vice-versa.

Once again, I think the comment that NXIVM clobbers "their critics in court", in light of the resource you had listed in the Times-Union section, I suppose it would reasonable to take Nine former members of your organization who had allegedly tried to extort money from the organization to court, just as it seems reasonable to take others to Court who methods that may be considered "underhanded" and clearly in violation of past agreements to court. Can you name one organization who would not take former associates/employees to Court under these circumstances? I don't mean any disrespect with that comment, I am just curious to see if there a company/organization that who could allow that. Anyways, I appreciate the input and look forward to your response! U21980 (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Do founders of organizations typically have their own page? I agree that they should be separate. Like U said, there is more to Ranier than NXIVM and we need a page to discuss other aspects of his life.Tomohawkmama (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nys Office Of The Attorney General consent order that shutdown CBL

This is the original Consent Order and Judgment against Raniere and CBI calling it a pyramid scheme https://acrobat.com/#d=FpA7rr-I3WK9LxnO*LOVcA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyser Sözetigho (talk • contribs) 23:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

GOOD! Good work Keiser! But please, do go on! What else can you tell us about this document? Chrisrus (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Keyser forgot to mention that Raniere is not allowed to operate a chain-distributor scheme in NY that is in violation of GBL 359-fff (per the document itself), instead he took it as Raniere not being able to open a business at all in NY. We will want to correct that information when the page is unlocked. U21980 (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well, could we make some progress here? Right after the early life and such, after he graduates from RPI, the next section should be about CBI, and it should end with this judgement and what it actually says. Would you like to do the honors, U21980? Chrisrus (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Chrisrus, I'll go ahead and take care of that if you would like. We can discuss the format and the particulars of the edits before I insert it into the article though. U21980 (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great. Chrisrus (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Chrisrus, During the past few days, I had the chance to modify the details of this information on the NXIVM page. Without creating a section about Consumers Buyline quite yet, I was wondering what you thought about inserting the following edit in place of the one already on the page: "In 1996, Raniere was the subject of an investigation by the Office Of The Attorney General of New York State that led to the closing of his company Consumers Buyline. A consent order went on to impose a $40,000 fine and barred Raniere from ever operating a chain distributor scheme in the State of New York only if it would violate GBL Section 359-fff." Let me know what you think! U21980 (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So after looking into the specifics of the case, it turns out that Raniere never admitted guilt for any wrongdoing by Consumers Buyline, and that the case was settled after he was unable to pay for further litigation costs:

HELEN RHODES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

vs.

KEITH RANIERE and CONSUMERS' BUYLINE, INC. Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Civil Action 92-10877K

STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT

H. Counsel of plaintiff have made a thorough study of the legal principles applicable to the Settled Claims, have conducted extensive discovery relating to those claims, have thoroughly evaluated the likelihood of success if the case proceeded to trial. The decision of Plaintiff and her Counsel to settle is not an admission that the Amended Complaint lacks merit, but is based primarily on Defendants' weak financial condition and inability to pay an significant judgement which might be rendered in this matter. Based upon these undertakings, the Plaintiff and her counsel have concluded that it will be impossible to obtain a judgment, whether by trial or settlement, which will provide any restitution for the putative Class alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, that the Defendants are unable to pay the costs of any settlement to the putative Class, that the injunctive relief provided for herein will benefit the putative Class, and that nothing herein will bar or prejudice any member of the putative Class from seeking any relief against the Defendants.

I. The Defendants contend that the Amended Complaint is meritless and have at all times denied, and contain to deny, that they have committed, or have threatened to committed, or have threatened to commit, any wrongful acts or violations of law to any nature whatsoever in connection with the allegations in either the original complaint or Amended Complaint, or any other matter related in any way to any aspect of CBI or its business and operations, or its dealings with CBI members or distributors.

Obviously this shifts the image of the entire Consumer Buyline decision in and of itself. Would there be any objections to the addition of this information from this Court document into the page? U21980 (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and come up with a proposed edit to throw into the page for review sometime later today U21980 (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Albany Times Union

http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=home&search=1&firstRequest=1&query=keith+raniere&x=23&y=10&searchindex=property

A very recent article (updated: June 6, 2011) discusses NXIVM's litigiousness against critics. Other articles archived on the Albany Times Union website above, discuss the Dalai Lama's visit, the Bronfman heirs contributions or funds lost to NXIVM and/or Keith Raniere, the mysterious origins of a child being reared by Raniere and NXIVM women, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairsfair7 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually read the article you had listed above. "NXIVM's litigousness against their critics" sounds a bit harsh considering the fact that the so-called "NXIVM Nine" were being sued for allegedly committing extortion though, so it isn't as if these former members were just simply critics: "On the Friday before Memorial Day weekend, NXIVM sued former officer Barbara Bouchey of Saratoga County in state Supreme Court in Albany, accusing her and eight others who left NXIVM in 2009 of attempting to extort nearly $2.1 million from NXIVM by threatening to go to the press." Either way though it makes for an interesting read. Thanks for sharing this article! U21980 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, U - all, agree that the summary could be expanded to more accurately describe the circumstances reported therein. But, let's be accurate (or try to). The suit appears to be against only one former NXIVM officer, Barbara Bouchey (not all of the "NXIVM 9," the defectors), who allegedly was a financial planner for NXIVM and the Bronfman heiresses. The heiresses also filed a separate lawsuit against Bouchey (according to public records) not yet reported by this source.

Apart from these particular lawsuits, I've come across plenty of evidence of litigious conduct on the part of NXIVM and/or its members against detractors. I would even go so far as to say that some of U-r (your) own comments appear to me to be focused on a litigious mindset. U mentioned the blog in Saratoga posts proprietary NXIVM materials or something to that effect. U, frankly, also appear at times to be on a fishing expedition, baiting users to expand on matters that are (per the lawsuits) considered proprietary by the org. U also mentioned "hidden agendas," ...where did that come from?

I am who I say I am, a journalist in search of truth. Now, tell me, who r U? (In general, I mean.) And, if U r a NXIAN (is that how we should refer to them?) I, for one, would not hold that against you or automatically consider your posts NOPOV.

Thanks. Fairsfair7 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Fairsfair7, I was responding to what you had posted, it is really as simple as that. The NXIVM 9 are mentioned in the following quote:

"On the Friday before Memorial Day weekend, NXIVM sued former officer Barbara Bouchey of Saratoga County in state Supreme Court in Albany, accusing her and eight others who left NXIVM in 2009 of attempting to extort nearly $2.1 million from NXIVM by threatening to go to the press."

With that said, how was my post above considered inaccurate? Also, shouldn't I be concerned about the posting of information possibly violating copyright laws being posted on the page?

Hi U2, the inaccurate part was the part about suing the "NXIVM 9" you'd posted earlier. Apparently, they are only suing the financial planner. And, back when I believed you just might be a NXIAN, I was curious as to why they are singling her out. Also, I came across a Raniere quote stating early on that they were taking action against "probably against just one person." Fairsfair7 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the hidden agendas comment, it was in response to the following post in the Village Voice section:

"I am intrigued by the Dalai Lama aspect. But, what I've read indicates that the Dalai Lama admonished "transparency" during his Albany visit. Perhaps, not that I would dare speak for him, but just perhaps, he thought that with all the resources available to NXIVM, they might be able and willing to put themselves on a path toward really enlightening humanity. Instead, it seems, again, just from what I've read, they are only hell-bent on snuffing out any criticism, keeping their agendas hidden (why, for example, don't I find Mr. Raniere extolling more than his boast about having people killed for his or their beliefs, on you tube?...or anywhere else? And, why are they spending a fortune in litigation to gag their critics? Those amounts could feed thousands of hungry families.) So, where's the beef? Serve it up, if ya got it, and I'm sure some of us would be happy to write about it. Peace. :) 108.83.106.184 (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)"

I asked that user to expand on the idea of the hidden agenda, I never proposed that an agenda existed. I hoped that my posting clarified any confusion that you may have had about me or my postings on this site. Let's be honest with each other here, I have no way of knowing who you really are, nor do you have any idea who I am, but I can assure you that I am no NXIAN. Anyways, I look forward to your response. U21980 (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Fairsfair7, assume good faith is a "fundamental principle of wikipedia." I've been reading some of the past transcripts on this page and NXIVM. Anytime U pushes against the rush to judgement, he is accused of being one the "them." I suggest we keep accusations out of this discussion.Tomohawkmama (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, U and Tom, did not mean to "accuse" anyone of being a NXIAN. lol. Actually, it may be wishful thinking on my part. Would really like to hear "their" side. All the stories I read are very negative, indeed. And, they're not all written by McIntosh. Did come across sumthin' today that may explain the source of some of the bad publicity. The Saratoga blog posted court docs on the case against the financial planner (also Keith Raniere's ex-GF), accusing her, Barbara Bouchey, of makin' media mischief. Is she a scapegoat or a money-grubbin', scorned lover? Or both? (Not that I think there are any NXIAN's on here or anything.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairsfair7 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Fairsfair7 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• • This talk page is a circus.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Milowent, I'm not sure how to take your statement. Wouldn't you agree that the page has calmed down recently? Also Fairsfair7, your statement while not a direct accusation, seems to imply that I am a member of NXIVM, which is what Tomohawkmama was responding to, I believe. Anyways, once again, I have already stated my problems with the Saratoga Blog as they seemed to have an agenda against me personally. U21980 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi U2, yep, that's where I may have assumed you were a NXIAN. Where U apparently have some legal concern about alleged violations of proprietary NXIAN materials being posted on the blog. Perhaps I misread. And ya caught me "fishing" on the hidden agenda matter...likewise I'm sure. BTW, the first paragraph edits make a lot more sense...more honestly admitting that Raniere took only the one (Hoeflin) I.Q. test. But if there were any others, please do site them. Fairsfair7 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's be candid here, I have concern over information being posted that shouldn't be posted for legality purposes. That doesn't make me a NXIAN, just someone who is trying to uphold legality in all its forms. U21980 (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)