Wikipedia

Talk:NXIVM/Archive 2

< Talk:NXIVM
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
Archive 1Archive 2

cite web

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

69.181.23.220 (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Multi-level marketing

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

The claim that NXIVM is a multi-level marketing organization has been added to the article. The first time it was added, I removed the description because the claim was not just MLM, but a "pyramid scheme", which is illegal in all of the U.S., and the reference added did not make that claim. The current claim is that NXIVM is an MLM, but the word "pyramid" has disappeared. However, the sources are problematic - one describes a court filing which claims that NXIVM is an MLM which is illegal in New York; the other source says only that "critics described" it as an MLM in a previous story from another source.

I'm not entirely clear if saying a corporation has been run as a criminal enterprise is subject to WP:BLP, because no specific person is named, but it seems that stronger sourcing is required for this claim for this company. Argyriou (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

A quick Google search of NXIVM reveals a host of reliable sources that refer to the company as MLM. I could add them, but I fear that will only result in you reverting me a third straight time. And since you brought up WP:BLP, sources also describe Raniere as a multi-level marketer himself. I did notice that you left "Multi-level marketing" as the industry description in the Infobox, which makes me wonder: Are you OK with saying NXIVM is part of the MLM industry, but not an MLM itself? I am a bit confused by this and how that fits into your "pyramid" concerns, which, I agree are valid given the legality of such schemes, but that's a topic for another day.
I don't want to get into a revert war, so I will throw this out for others' consideration: If you can find a reliable source that says NXIVM is NOT an MLM, then that would constitute a lack of consensus. In that case, I do believe the description should be left off this article and NXIVM should not be on the List of multi-level marketing companies. If not, let's pick from the myriad sources that do say the company is an MLM, and use them to state as much here on Wikipedia. That seems only natural and logical to me. Do any other editors have a better suggestion? Kerdooskis (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there is adequate sourcing to support listing the company as an MLM. I have seen no sources that contest the claim. There appears to be no basis for your addition of this term being reverted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Here are few more sources that support the designation,[1][2][3][4][5][6] and I suspect there are others. I see nothing equivocal about the MLM aspect in any sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, MLM is not illegal; but pyramid schemes are. Here's a 1998 speech by the former General Counsel of the US Federal Trade Commission that discusses pyramid schemes and distinguishes them from legitimate MLM. A well-sourced claim that NXIVM is an MLM is not disparaging and should be uncontroversial; a claim that it's a pyramid scheme should be very carefully sourced and be made only with painstaking attention to accuracy. TJRC (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Forget pyramid scheme. How much sourcing do we need to call it a cult?  :-o NickCT (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm calling it a cult, whether anyone else does or not. There is some shit going on with these people that would make L. Ron Hubbard say "what the fuck"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.231.167.121 (talk • contribs)

Mainstream media referred to it as a cult, and the charges are human trafficking. That is enough to say it is a self titled self-help group that appears to be a front for illegal activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C002:D83A:9119:D26F:59A4:1D1D (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Key People Question

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

With a number of reports suggesting Allison Mack was NXIVM's second-in-command at the time of her arrest, would it be accurate to add her to the "Key people" section in the infobox? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  • My concern is that infoboxes can be a way to get something into an article (or to unduly emphasize something already in the article) in a way that avoids normal scrutiny and context. There are sources that characterize Mack's role in the leadership, but those sources tend to be either a) unreliable sources, b) the "entertainment" division of reliable sources (e.g.), or, "best" of all, c) the "entertainment" division of unreliable sources e.g.). In the mine-run of cases, those characterizations seem to be less *reporting of facts* but slipshod and sensationalist *editorial characterizations*. (What does "second in command" mean in organizations lacking formal structures? What does "key"? Is Luca Brasi a "key" member of the Family? Maybe. Is Tom Hagen? Probably, but is he "second in command"?) So I think we should be chary about adding things to the infobox that aren't established beyond serious controversy in the text of the article. Whatever Nxivm *is* (controversial), Raniere and Salzman are running it (uncontroversial). With one eye on BLP, *characterizing* Mack's role seems more on the controversial side of the line—a dangerous business best dealt with in the body of the article if at all. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Multiple WP:RS establish beyond question that Mack is a "key person" in the organization. Not all sources pertaining to Mack's role in leadership are unreliable or entertainment-based as alleged above, and it only takes one or two good ones to establish the fact for inclusion in this article. Case in point.[7][8] Not that it necessarily matters whether source are entertainment based. I wouldn't use TMZ but a less gossipy industry source like Variety could be perfectly acceptable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
"Craig Federighi is Apple's senior vice president of Software Engineering" is a neutral, factual statement. "Craig Federighi is a key member of Apple's leadership" is editorializing: It's not just reporting a person's job but characterizing their position and value in relation to others. And it drags us into a thicket: What does it mean to be a "key" member of Apple's leadership team? Which senior VPs are not also key members of that team? Which non-VPs are key members? And that's in the relatively straightforward context of a company with defined positions; a cult, almost by definition, doesn't have that kind of precision. If reliable sources describe Mack's role in the organization, the article can report that, but *characterizing* that involvement is something we should hesitate to do in the context of the article, let alone in a contextless infobox.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
We're not talking about a legit company like Apple (and the comparison to a secretive sex slave cult operation like NXIVM is rather absurd). The key personnel of Apple have been well publicized and the company is publicly traded, so the information is in the public domain. Not so with NXIVM (quite the contrary in fact -- it "operates in secrecy"[9]), so we have to use the best sources available as per WP:FRINGE. I was also correcting the statement that all the sources that describe Mack as a key player were somehow unreliable; clearly not so. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Globe and Mail stories

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/bronfman-heir-launches-canada-libya-initiative/article2372277/

In the course of talking about something else, this G&M article says that "Until now, most of the publicity surrounding Sara Bronfman and her sister, Clare, has focused on their devotion to the so-called “human potential” business NXIVM (pronounced “nexium”) based in Albany, N.Y."

It also references the 2003 Forbes quoting Bromfman Sr. “I think it's a cult,” and says that Rick Ross "a cult expert" "reportedly faced legal action from NXIVM over similar claims" without explaining that they sued him for saying it, and that he won the case.

The news is that Bronfman has temporarily stopped working for NXIVM to focus on her own projects and her upcoming wedding.

It refers to "the negative press over NXIVM" but mentions none other than the Forbes. She says the accusations about NXIVM aren't true and that such accusations are to be expected about any organization that does anything (good) in the world.

The rest is off-topic, about Bromfman's new projects to help democracy in Lybia by expanding trade with Canada. But this is clearly the least damning article at least tangently about NXIVM that we've seen, but even it says that it's primarily known in the press negatively and as a cult, and so could be used to cite that fact.

What it contains that is new is the fact that she's at least, for now, getting away from it and on with her life without it, at least for a while. Chrisrus (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge Proposal Discussion Invitation

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

A merge proposal was made to merge Keith Raniere with NXIVM in November 2017, I have revived the merge proposal. Please see discussion here. Your comments in the discussion would be appreciated since the page is within this WikiProject. -- Waddie96 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it's already merged and I don't think it should be, particularly now that Raniere is in the news. Makes me wonder if someone merged the articles to hide something. I think someone should revert the merge until some discussion takes place.2605:6000:6947:AB00:DCE7:24E6:8FE5:6D49 (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Merging an article doesn't hide anything on Wikipedia. If there's something about him in there that's relevant to this article, and that can be verified with WP:Reliable sources, by all means please add it. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@2605:6000:6947:AB00:DCE7:24E6:8FE5:6D49: please see merger discussion here. The consensus was to merge. Waddie96 (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not Merge Keith Raniere with NXIVM?

I suggest we do not {{Merge}} Keith Raniere article with NXIVM article. Within the context of their new and present 2018 legal challenges, I'm re-opening this discuss here as this previous 2017 discussion was closed.

This is my proposal to not merge. I suggest two articles. One for NXIVM and one for Keith Raniere. Mainly because within the context of their present legal challenges, legally speaking according to the US laws, NXIVM is a corporation/company. In turn, this means NXIVM and Keith Raniere are two different legal entities. In other words, and translated to English, this means criminal charges may affect one entity without affecting the other entity. All are welcome to join the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keith_Raniere#Not_Merge_with_NXIVM? Francewhoa (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

If your comment was an article, it would be in serious need of a rewrite 82.30.110.20 (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support With recent revelations (Allison Mack pleading guilty, A LOT of media focusing on the leader of the cult, etc.), there's enough notability for an article of his own. Obviously most sources focus on his alleged crimes (and for worries of WP:BLP we should treat them as such, as any crime suspect), but there's enough information in those WP:RS to make an entire biography of this guy and more. In my opinion it's pretty weird that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the leader of one of the most famous cults right now, with the amount of celebrities involved, everyone's going to wonder who this guy is and there not being a Wiki article on him is pretty embarrassing. There's not even a section on the NXIVM titled by his name. Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY I'd say seeing this guy had an article about him for years there's no case about not being article about him right now. Loganmac (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Capitalized or not?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

DoJ's filings style it as Nxivum, as standard English would require; the group itself seems to prefer all-caps. Which should we use?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

To me it seems more appropriate to use NXIVM as that is the WP:COMMONNAME. Nxivm is how the DoJ files it, but is that how the rest of the world would too? Waddie96 (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

On a similar note, would it be reasonable to make the organizations in the "Beliefs and Practices" section not in bold font? Perhaps in quotes or just capitals instead? They are not links. That use of bold is not a style I see on other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanesmo (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Several sources we use say this is a cult or "cult-like"

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Several sources we use say the subject of this article is a cult or "cult-like". This is the most significant thing about this organisation and so should be mentioned straight away. I made such a change but it was reverted by Fbergo.

Fbergo seems to think we can't verify this, despite the numerous sources cited. If we don't think those sources are reliable, we shouldn't use them in the article, but I think they are and presumably most editors of this article think so too since the sources have been in the article for a while.

I didn't add any new sources. I didn't really add many new words either - the lead already said "News reports and former members have described NXIVM as a cult." - I moved this information into the first sentence.

Yaris678 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  • The Multi-level marketing item above in this talk page deals with this. To change the primary definition of the article's subject one would need reliable sources affirming that NXIVM is not a multi-level marketing and never engaged in its alleged primary business, selling personal and professional development seminars. Yes, the company may be just a front for the cult thing, it could be half-and-half for seminars/cult, or the cult thing could be a small part of the operation. As far as I know there are no reliable sources on that, any claim about it is speculation. The cult operations are under investigation and we should keep speculation, opinions and media sensasionalism off the encyclopaedic article. Fbergo (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ^ Seconded. Yaris, as you point out, "the lead already sa[s] 'News reports and former members have described NXIVM as a cult,'" so it's hardly as if the article's hiding those (probably correct) allegations. Raniere's going to trial in October; Mack will presumably flip before that or be tried at the same time; and more indictments are (we're told) coming. So the truth will out in due course. In the meantime: WP:NOW.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I must agree, as well. There are certainly cult-like elements to NXIVM, but the extent of those elements are unknown; let's wait until the legal proceedings are further along, or even over, before changing our definition of the subject: as it currently stands, it's quite within the realm of possibility that it did engage in some MLM, regardless of extent, and, ultimately, it's best to contribute with what we know we know. Should the judge and/or jury find that the subject was indeed a cult, we shall change it then; until that time, if such a time occurs, however, let us speak about that which we know and can verify. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 02:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

COI: A gentle reminder

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:SELFPROMOTE: "If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions.."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Major rewrite, 20180518

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Given the amount of material circulating and the number of changes made in recent months (such changes tend to be accretive), it seemed advisable to do a major rewrite/cleanup from the ground up, and I have done that while also adding additional reporting from places like Vanity Fair and The Hollywood Reporter. Hopefully it now has a more coherent structure and narrative thread. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Would it be a SYNTH problem to add to the description of Bronfman's blogpost the statement that 'The same post confirmed the existence of DOS, stating of the "secret sisterhood": “[W]hile I am not and never have been a member of the sorority, ...[it] has not coerced nor abused anyone. In fact, the sorority has truly benefited the lives of its members, and does so freely. I find no fault in a group of women ... freely taking a vow of loyalty and friendship with one another to feel safe while pushing back against the fears that have stifled their personal and professional growth. It’s not for any of us to judge how they, or anyone else, choose to advance their lives and values.”' The upshot's clear, but is it clear enough?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure about SYNTH but there might be a WP:UNDUE issue if there is disproportionate focus on the Bronfmans. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't think of it in terms of emphasizing the Bronfmans; the significance strikes me that, in the context of reports of a "secret sisterhood" (sisterhood=sorority) which goes by various names including (but not necessarily limited to) DOS and The Vow, in the context of Raniere's lawyers taking an "everything was consensual" tack, a senior NXIVM person is coming out with a statement saying that she has never been a member of "the sorority" but that "the sorority" is a good thing and it's not for us to judge them "freely taking a vow." I mean, it couldn't be any clearer that the statement confirms three things, that DOS exists as alleged, that it's called "the sorority" in NXIVM's internal jargon, and it's well enough known within NXIVM for there to be internal jargon for it. Qua juror, boom. A picture of what's been going on is now become clear. Qua WP editor... Whether that can go in... I put it into Bronfman's article first, but while I was doing the rewrite on this article I got cold feet about whether it wasn't a SYNTH problem. I don't think it's an UNDUE problem at all, so if no one shares my SYNTH concerns, I'll plan on dropping it in this evening. Waiting until then for further comment.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Have at it. I look forward to seeing your addition. Cheers! Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
This might be worth revisiting now based on some of the news reports I saw today which seem to paint Clare Bronffman as playing a key role (executive level) in the organization. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The only story I’m finding is this one in the Daily Beast, and isn't that QS, at least in a BLP context? Interesting historical footnote: Nine years ago, I apparently started one of the earliest RSN discussions about the Beast as a source. [10] A lot’s changed since then, but the most recent RSN mentions I found imply that it’s still QS, much as I’d like to use it to undo this. ;) Still, definitely interesting background reading. One particularly interesting detail: The feds own his email. That surely points us toward the ultimate resolution of all this. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
And underscoring that point, we learn today that Raniere also refers to DOS as "the sorority"—to an NYT scribe, even. [11]- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

NXIVM, Reliable sources were provided

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
  Moved from Talk:General Ization

I provided a direct reference to the official indictment in which Title Code 18, §1591(b)(1) is associated with the charges against Keith Raniere and Allison Mack. The indictment was sourced from from justice.gov. Notice the domain .gov: "The .gov domain facilitates collaboration among government-to-government, government-to-business, and government-to-citizen entities. The domain hosts only official, government sites at the federal, state, and local levels, including federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaskan Native groups, known as Native Sovereign Nations (NSNs). The .gov domain provides the official and trusted internet presence for these government entities." Source

The second source referenced Cornell Law School explanation of Section 1591(b)(1). In case this is deemed an unreliable source I can directly reference the U.S. Government Publishing Office: §1591.

Do we agree that these references are reliable and also clearly state that Keith Raniere and Allison Mack has been charged with T. 18, U.S.C., §1591(b)(l) (amongst others)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeanuMoowgliie (talk • contribs) 13:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

We do. However, you are relying exclusively on the chapter title of §1591 to infer that Raniere and Mack are accused of trafficking children. That section includes two specifications: "if the offense was effected by means of force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or by any combination of such means, or if the person recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, or obtained had not attained the age of 14 years at the time of such offense" (emphasis added). There is nothing in the indictment that indicates that the criterion related to persons under 14 is satisfied; rather they are charged with inducing using threats and coercion. Your inference is not supported by the indictment and is synthesis. General Ization Talk 13:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Raniere's been accused of molesting a 12-year-old girl among others, but despite a detention letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office which mentions it, I've not found reliable sources saying charges have been filed against him for it. Searches for the words 'underage' and 'minor' found nothing in this complaint from justice.gov, nor is there any mention in this press release or this one.BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspension of operations

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

One of the Nxivm websites has published an announcement that they have suspended operations for the duration; my attention was drawn to this by the Frank Report website. I've added that info with citations of both sites. The sourcing on this is problematic since it's an WP:SPS drawing atention to WP:PRIMARY. Nevertheless, insofar as this isn't BLP material, neither of those guidelines are an absolute bar, and I think this sourcing is okay for such low-voltage stuff as the fact and timing of the suspension. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Things to do

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  • I am still digesting the New York Times article published this week, and from which I have already added a few bits and pieces. It has a significant amount of reporting that may help us flesh out both the “good” (i.e. what Nxivm purported to being doing in terms of its self-help "technology") and the “bad” (e.g. Mack told the reporter that she originated the branding stuff).
  • Our article currently makes no mention of Jness. In my rewrite the other week, I didn't tackle that. My impression is that DOS was an enclave within Jness which was in turn a component-group within Nxivm, I’m not sure how to incorporate and source a discussion of that. Maybe that fits in with the "Early Mack" section? Change section title to "Allison Mack and Jness," maybe? The NYT story and the A&E documentary may help frame that.
  • Then there’s this. Can I get some input on whether there’s an adequate SPS exception for material that is pertinent and contextually-reliable, but unlikely to be sourceable from elsewhere?

- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Frank Report, I'm usually willing to give pretty wide latitude for sourcing on fringey subjects, although NXIVM is arguably not fringe anymore with respect to depth/volume of media coverage, but it's hard to see how Frank Report can be a given a pass as a standalone source. Maybe if he had strong credentials as a journalist but the reports I have seen describe him simply as a "newspaperman" and a "blogger", as well as a "whistleblower" and the former publicist for NXIVM. He is often quoted however by WP:RS and they refer to his website, as in the case of this Rolling Stone article.[12] So IMO, it might be OK to link his blog as a secondary source when a primary source quotes or mentions it as a source, but not as a standalone. Since the media seems to be monitoring his blog and using it for news reports, it might not take long for details on his blog to appear in a media source that would be considered reliable for WP. Does that echo your thinking somewhat? Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I meant that post specifically, as a kind of "behind the scenes in the war on Nxivm," rather than the Frank Report generally. Insofar as he seems to have been a focal-point and champion of sorts for Nxivm critics, and thus the natural source as reporting percolated up into RS like the NYT, that post is a striking "how the dominos fell" piece. More generally, I agree, and it bears noting that insofar as he's the publisher of Artvoice, it, too, should be handled with caution, even though they're obviously very useful "on background," so to speak. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Alleged Richard Branson involvement

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Should these articles be mentioned?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5649997/Sex-cult-Nxivm-partied-Richard-Bransons-private-island-twice.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6117529/nxivm-held-parties-on-richard-branson-island-claims/2600:6C50:7006:400:1541:C156:4D34:A295 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Both are tabloids and neither is considered a reliable source. We should no more consider including these claims than we would include claims published in the National Enquirer in the US. General Ization Talk 22:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
To clarify for non-British editors, they are tabloid newspapers but not out and out scandal sheets like the Enquirer. A better US parallel would be the New York Daily News. --Ef80 (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Domain name

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An IP has removed the template:official website links from the article. The domain name has expired, so to avoid WP:ELNEVER hijinks, I've removed it from Wikidata, as well. Since it expired less than a week ago, it might still be renewed, but that seems very unlikely considering the company's recent history. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ayn Rand influence

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There should be more detail on what the basic teachings of this group are. Specifically, they seem to be influenced by Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Rand was kind of a cult leader herself. Frank Parlato has written extensively about this, but I'm not sure if he is considered a reliable source for this article. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any way in which his website could be considered a neutral source. Grandpallama (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"...Described as a cult"

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

First paragraph. Described? There's no debate about this. It's not a matter of opinion.
It's a cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C44F:7C00:31C6:20:ADE8:AA20 (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

What does the name mean anyway?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I can't find the answer to this question especially in this article. 110.33.0.155 (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I came here to ask this. It seems to be a quasi-phonetic spelling of "nexium," but the article really needs an explanation. Also: what does "nexium" mean? JKeck (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I would guess it is actually a reference to Nexum, which was a form of debt slavery. Just speculation, though, so far as I know the group never explained the name. - MrOllie (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Location for Sarah Edmondson claim

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The paragraph of § Critical former members dealing with Sarah Edmondson's branding has the location where it took place (or, rather, the ownership of said location) flagged as "contradictory" with this explanation: Two sources used here are contradictory: the Hollywood Reporter article says it was Mack's home, but the New York Times exposé says it was Lauren Salzman's home. That's not quite accurate, though. The NYTimes piece reads:

In March, Ms. Edmondson arrived for an initiation ceremony at Ms. Salzman’s home in Clifton Park, N.Y., a town about 20 miles north of Albany where Mr. Raniere and some followers live. After undressing, she was led to a candlelit ceremony, where she removed a blindfold and saw Ms. Salzman’s other slaves for the first time. The women were then driven to a nearby house, where the branding took place.

I don't know that that's necessarily enough to conclude that the second house belongs to Allison Mack, as the other sources indicated. But it does appear that the NYTimes account is consistent with the other reporting, at least. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Edmondson also states in the CBC podcast Uncovered that the second home belonged to Allison Mack. There, she says she recognized it as being Mack's house through the part of her vision that wasn't obstructed by her blindfold. She says the same thing in the HBO miniseries The Vow. But this is all one person making that claim, so I am not sure if it is helpful or not. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To add to this article: mention of the FBI. Didn't they do the investigation that led to the prosecutions? If so, why aren't they mentioned in the text of the article? Can information about how the criminal activities of this group were identified and investigated be added as well? The investigation and how it came about (was law enforcement tipped off?) seems as notable as the misdeeds done by this group. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Involvement of Camila Fernández?

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

A question was raised regarding the involvement of Camila Fernández in some of the group's activities. The NYT article mentioned in the paragraph doesn't contain her name, but the cited Mexican publication does:

La lista sigue con Daniela Padilla, Camila Fernández y Mónica Durán, quienes son señaladas como maestras del primer círculo de la Dominant Over Submissive (DOS), hermandad secreta creada a fines de 2016 y que coexistía al interior de NXIVM.

or, in English:

The list continues with Daniela Padilla, Camila Fernández and Mónica Durán, who are designated as teachers of the first circle of Dominant Over Submissive (DOS), a secret brotherhood created at the end of 2016 and that coexisted within NXIVM.

(The cited article: https://www.elsoldemexico.com.mx/mexico/sociedad/quienes-son-los-mexicanos-involucrados-con-la-secta-nxivm-3674611.html)

Now, whether or not El Sol de México is a reliable source, I'm unsure, so I'm raising the question here. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 19:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

So long as the sentence claims NYT reported it - clearly they did not. Camilla is a minor victim, her name has been redacted in most contexts. If the sources seems off, we definitely should not include a full name. Feoffer (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the last name of Camila on the article based on this discussion. As mentioned above: "Camilla is a minor victim, her name has been redacted in most contexts. If the sources seems off, we definitely should not include a full name". Thanks Promexicanwomen (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

And I put it back. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and the Mexican article cited does include her name, so the cat's out of the bag, as they say. What is your source for stating she is "a minor victim", and that the Mexican government has requested her name not be published? According to the article text (that I included above), she wasn't a victim; she was a participant. If you want to engage in revisionism or censorship here, you're going to have to convince a lot of people that you're right—and back up your assertions with several rock-solid sources.
AND, you changed the text I put here on the Talk page. Do not do this! I reverted the damage you caused to the page, then I re-added your text (above) as accurately as I could. I also noted same on your user talk page. Making matters worse, you marked your disruptive edit "minor", which it is not (see WP:MINOR). — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that you are keeping here the last name of a minor who was a sexual abuse victim. I think it should only be her first name that is used in the Talk Page as well. What happens in other pages where private information about sexual abuse victims is shared on Talk Pages? Is it left just because another person wrote it ? I think we need to consider we are talking about sexual abuse of minors here. I do not feel comfortable that Wikipedia is sharing private information about sexual abuse victims in its talk page. What is recommended in this case? What has happened in other cases? Thanks Promexicanwomen (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I am curious about why despite the discussion that her last name would not be used, we are now having edit wars where people are adding back in the last name of Camila. Is it due to personal hate you have for women who were sexually abused as minors? Why are you guys adding back her last name despite this discussion? Promexicanwomen (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are a bunch of articles that discuss that Camila is a victim. The US Federal Government was the one that said that her last name should not be used. Prosecutors DID not use her last name or picture because of that:https://www.courthousenews.com/jury-takes-over-in-case-of-accused-sex-cult-leader/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/28/nyregion/nxivm-keith-raniere-sentence.html

In the above articles they also mention: "Keith Raniere, prosecutors introduced this photo showing the “first-line masters” of DOS, a secretive sex cult within the group. Raniere, their “master,” is pictured at center, with Lauren Salzman in the top-left corner. The government redacted the image of Camila as she is a sex-crime victim. (Source: US Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of New York.)" The US government is who said that her last name and photo should not be used. I am curious about why you are pushing to disclose private information about sexual victims who were minors? Is it a personal hate towards women? What is it ? It is not normal behavior. Promexicanwomen (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

After looking at this for a while, I think I've figured out where it went off the rails: ineffective communication. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means that no one person is allowed to make unilateral decisions (or act as though they feel they can). The comments above are the first time someone involved in this discussion has effectively communicated that Camilla was underage. Earlier, Feoffer said Camilla is a minor victim, her name has been redacted in most contexts, an ambiguous sentence that did not make her age status clear. "Minor" can mean many things, and I read it as an adjective, modifying "victim", and meaning "of lesser significance". In that context, removing the name amounts to selective revisionism, to which I objected because it's damaging to the encyclopedia.
Later, Promexicanwomen said a minor who was a sexual abuse victim. This is the first time that I saw someone clearly and unambiguously explain to other editors that Camila is an underage person. Despite his/her nearly personal-attack language (Is it a personal hate towards women?), he/she makes a good point. The problem, again, is that it's nearly lost in the uncivil accusations, such as curious about why you are pushing to disclose private information about sexual victims. I was doing no such thing, and to characterize it as such is disingenuous and dishonest, since the information has already been disclosed.
Wikipedia attracts a lot of people with an agenda to push, and who are not here to write and maintain an encyclopedia. One of the statements someone made (in an edit summary) was the government also requested to not share her last name. When I read that, my first reaction was "So what? Who cares?". Wikipedia publishes many things, and I'm certain that some governments would prefer it not appear here. Governments' preferences, while interesting, are irrelevant to many—if not most—editors.
Now that the facts are more clear, I no longer object to having Camilla's surname removed from the article. To avoid future unpleasantness, I recommend my fellow editors here follow a few simple steps:
  • Always use an Edit Summary
  • Do not use an Edit Summary statement as a replacement for a Talk page discussion; it doesn't work.
  • Explain why you did what you did, especially if it involved undoing someone else's work. When you do, write carefully, and don't assume the reader knows anything about your intentions. In other words, explain yourself clearly.
  • Assume good faith when dealing with anyone here. Short, brusque statements are likely to get short, brusque responses, and that's how wars start. Let's not do that.
  • Be careful with the tone of what you write. Avoid making statements that sound like orders or royal proclamations—they will irritate people, and irritated people tend not to listen very well.
There is a good essay (WP:HARM), and parts of it are applicable here. I recommend reading the Suggested Procedure section. Sorry to be so long-winded, but I think it's worth the effort to avoid conflict. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

One small word in the lead sentence should change

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I manually reverted a tiny edit made months ago which did not seem to improve the article. It was undone by another editor, who asks me to seek consensus

By undoing the original edit, I thought I was taking the article towards a NPOV. The original edit is here, made by an editor who has made many useless edits, said preposterous things on talk pages and has been warned many times that "fixed grammar" is not an all-purpose edit summary. I'm in the process of reviewing hundreds of their edits while I wait for them to make one further edit and get blocked.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Child Prostitution

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Add "Child Prostitution" Category?

According to the United States Department of Justice's indictment unsealed at:

The criminal charges above includes, but are not limited to, “18 U.S.C § 1591”. Translated to English this criminal charge means "sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion". Source at https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-prostitution-children

In 1591 context above, the term "child" means "If the victim was under the age of 14 or if force, fraud, or coercion were used, the penalty is not less than 15 years in prison up to life. If the victim was aged 14-17, the penalty shall not be less than 10 years in prison up to life. Anyone who obstructs or attempts to obstruct the enforcement of this statute faces as many as 20 years imprisonment. Defendants who are convicted under this statute are also required to pay restitution to their victims for any losses they caused." Sources:

Still according to the source above, if convicted of the charges, both Mack and Raniere each face a minimum of 15 years and up to life in prison

Related news & information

The reported information above is significant. I suggest to add the "Child Prostitution" Category to the Wikipedia article.

Category:Child prostitution

Francewhoa (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say no. I could be wrong, but my understanding was that the trafficking was more that one of the members of DOS was underaged. Bringing her to New York (I believe from Mexico) and coercing her into having a sexual relationship with Raniere would constitute sex trafficking. It wouldn't constitute prostitution though. I haven't heard of there being any veritable prostitution within NXIVM, but I could be wrong. I can see why the indictments sounds like prostitution took place, though. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggested draft about sex trafficking of children

About the United States Department of Justice's indictment unsealed and their criminal charge of sex trafficking of children above. I suggest to add the following draft sentences to the article, under "2018 arrests and indictments" section. With sources.

In March 2018, Raniere was arrested and indicted on a variety of charges related to NXIVM, including sex trafficking, sex trafficking conspiracy, conspiracy to commit forced labor.[1][2][3] The United States Department of Justice's criminal charges include, but are not limited to, 18 U.S.C § 1591[4]. Which means "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion". If convicted of all charges including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C § 1591, both Allison Mack and Keith Raniere each face a minimum of 15 years and up to life in prison.[5][6]
Sources

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference nbcny1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ O'Reilly, Andrew (2018-05-04). "Trial set for 'Smallville' actress Allison Mack, alleged sex cult leader Keith Raniere". Fox News. Retrieved 2018-05-16.
  3. ^ Siemaszko, Corky (2018-05-04). "Self-help guru denies enslaving, branding women in Nxivm sex cult". NBC News. Retrieved 2018-05-16.
  4. ^ Parlato, Frank (2018-04-26). "Allison Mack and sex slaver Raniere may have trafficked teen girls from Chihuahua, Mexico". Artvoice. Retrieved 2018-05-16.
  5. ^ O'Reilly, Andrew (2018-04-24). "'Smallville' actress Allison Mack out on bail, facing 15 years to life in prison". Fox News. Retrieved 2018-05-16.
  6. ^ Park, Andrea (2018-04-21). ""Smallville" actress Allison Mack arrested for role in NXIVM sex cult". CBS News. Retrieved 2018-05-16.

Francewhoa (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The indictment is not only a primary source, but a court document. WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 11:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi User:Simon Dodd :) Thanks for your contributions. I'm assuming you're referring to one of the suggested media secondary source. Specifically the secondary source Artvoice's article at https://artvoice.com/2018/04/25/allison-mack-and-sex-slaver-raniere-may-have-trafficked-teen-girls-from-chihuahua-mexico/
Are you interested to suggest another secondary source? How about removing this secondary source and replacing it with another secondary source? Or how about removing this secondary source and keeping the other secondary sources in this draft above?
I agree that within the context of this article, primary sources are not appropriate. Such as a direct link to the indictment PDF file hosted by the US DJ as a primary source would not be appropriate. I was not suggesting this. Secondary sources seems appropriate within the context of this article. In other words, Artvoice is a secondary source. Not a primary source. Related to this the WP:BLPPRIMARY reads: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."
With infinite Wikipedia love ♥ Francewhoa (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I've extracted the material that you added to the first paragraph of the section, and moved it to the end of the section: It references events described in paragraph two and so its inclusion in paragraph one is out of sequence. I also cleaned up the writing. I have, however, let it substantially intact, even though I think it's a WP:OR problem; let's see if anyone else has anything to say on that before excising it, though.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards inclusion about the child trafficking detail; would be ideal if there were more sources other than just Artvoice, which is a bit weak to support all of this. Was it in fact mentioned in other sources as well? As for the primary source (court docket), it should definitely be cited as well to augment the secondary source, as per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Are there any sources or reports that the cult was engaged in child trafficking? The entirety of this case seems to just be from the title of the section of US code, and while that section of the US code does cover child abuse, it also contains the word "or." I'm not a legal scholar, but reading the title and then reading the code itself seems to indicate that it isn't solely about child trafficking.24.152.167.11 (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Your reading is correct. See #NXIVM, Reliable sources were provided below. General Ization Talk 17:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"Dominus obsequious sororium"

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all, I wanted to somehow address this in the article, but I'm not sure if it would be considered relevant enough to add. I'm a Classics graduate student with several years experience in Latin, but even a basic knowledge of how Latin works would tell you that "dominus obsequious sororium" very much does NOT translate to "master over the slave women," even though basically every news article repeats this without question (even if they do qualify it with "reportedly"). The problem is that I don't have a source for this other than my own experience, but here's the basic explanation:

"Dominus" does mean master, so that's fine, but "obsequious" is not a Latin word. Presumably it's a misspelling of "obsequiosus," which does mean "obedient." However, as an adjective, it should be in the same case as the noun it describes, and obsequio(s)us is in the same case as Dominus, which means that the Dominus is the one being described as obedient, not the "slave women." So the first two words mean "Obedient Master" (with a misspelling of obedient).

Sororium does not mean slave women, sisters, or female companions. Presumably they're going for a word related to "soror," which means "sister," but "sororium" is not a legitimate form of that noun. If it was supposed to say "of the sisters," in the genitive (possessive) case, it would be "sororum" without the "i." As it is, it could be the adjective "sisterly," but that doesn't really make sense without being attached to a noun. The other option for "sororium" is that it is the accusative (direct object) case of the noun "sororius," which means... brother-in-law.

tl;dr: What this jumble of nonsense actually says is "Obedient Master [subject] brother-in-law [object]. With no verb. So basically it's meaningless. It could also mean "Obedient master sisterly," which... isn't much better. If one wanted to be really generous and assume the "i" in sororium was just a spelling mistake like the missing "s" in obsequious, and changed it to "Dominus obsequiosus sororum," it would still say "Obedient master of the sisters."

I realize this is maybe pedantic, but it's odd that no one in the media bothered to check this. Is it possible to add some kind of hover text or anything to clarify that the "reported" translation is not accurate? I also don't have a source, but all those words can be easily checked on wiktionary. Here's a basic explanation of Latin cases: https://classics.osu.edu/Undergraduate-Studies/Latin-Program/Grammar/Cases/latin-case). If we assume that this phrase is Keith Raniere's doing, I think that adds another bit of evidence that Mr. 240 IQ or whatever was not the super genius he pretended to be, since it looks like he made this phrase on google translate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.87.175.118 (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not that they didn't research this, but that this is the (admittedly terrible) translation that people involved went with. I've come across reporting that mentions that "master over the slave women" really isn't what those words mean (maybe the CBC Uncovered podcast). So, no it's not pedantic. This is a good catch and something that should be noted. I won't do it, though, since it would be best to have a citation to a source that references how hackneyed a translation it is, or maybe a footnote by someone who does speak latin who can say what DOS actually translate to. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not even a translation error, it's a made-up phrase, not researched or checked, intended to sound learned and Latiny. A close relative is the common joke "nil carborundum illegitimae" (or "Illegitimi non carborundum", etc.), supposed to mean "don't let the bastards grind you down". I've edited the article to read "... one member translated as "Master over Slave Women",[102] although it is not even correct Latin, meaning nothing". Pol098 (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make the sick fella brighter than he is and you very well may be right. But sometimes people do spell words wrong on purpose for the meaning not to be clear, or for posible multible interpretations. The Beatles is wrong spelling, but it could make you think of the insect, the music genre, or the fact that both the drummers had dificulties keeping a tight beat.

Inclusion of Burke

Latest comment: 3 years ago22 comments11 people in discussion

I don't think edit warring via pending changes is going to help with this matter, so I want people to hash it out on the talk page instead. So far, seems like some people think that it is reliable and others do not, the former being mostly IP editors and the latter pending changes reviewers. I really don't have an opinion on this matter, this page has little interest to me outside of pending changes, but I do want this to get worked out. Sennecaster (What now?) 10:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Out of the four sources that keep being included, two are primary - entirely inappropriate for BLP matters. One does not mention Burke, so is not useful. The remaining one is Burke and Sandweg – two high-profile Obama lawyers – represent Nxivm in suspicious visa dealings which looks like a blog - not an appropriate WP:RS for WP:BLP matters. Unless a more reliable source is cited, the content should be removed. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Particularly for those of us concerned with the "human fright experiments" (akin to modern-day torture) conducted on hundreds of Women by NVIXM's "Ethical Science Foundation" (ESF), this material is pertinent. Those of us following the NXIVM saga identify immediately with the "Artvoice" blog published by Frank Parlato (already cited throughout the existing NXIVM article) as it was a primary source used by international media (Newsweek, Vice, TIME, even the New York Times) to track developments throughout the NXIVM investigation and jury trial.
The first link appears to be some kind of duplicate, possibly inadvertent, from a legitimate legal document that became noteworthy (Gov PACER Doc. #256) to those of us following the trial, because it revealed the extraordinary historical fact there was a lawyer, Dennis Burke (a former federal prosecutor, in fact) who did himself participate in a "scheme" with the NXIVM cult. I am unaware of any other lawyer working with NXIVM who was in fact mentioned as a target or subject of the NXIVM investigation in the government's court documents as Burke was. I am unsure why the "courtlistener" link to PACER Doc. #256 was posted twice here. Appears to be an error. However I do see a quotation that was included suggesting the author meant to cite the following court document that does directly link Burke (who indeed was mentioned throughout the NXIVM exposé) as the lawyer who represented ESF:
[13] "An attorney named Dennis Burke represented ESF in connection with the subpoena." (ESF is NXIVM's "Ethical Science Foundation", NXIVM's entity that performed "Human fright experiments" on hundreds of Women in New York State)
This article, also from the Artvoice blog already cited throughout the existing NXIVM article, mentions Burke and the government's PACER Doc. #256:
[14] "DOJ: NXIVM’s Mexican Attorneys Engaged In Criminal Activities With Raniere and Bronfman; Dennis Burke also mentioned"
Here is yet another:
[15] "Illegal efforts to get Marianna Fernandez in US may get her indicted –Dennis Burke implicated by government in fraud"
A quick web search reveals the federal court (PACER) document #256, behind a paywall in the proposed 'courtlistener' submission. It can be found for verification, as it is linked from several articles here:
[16] "A January 2, 2016 letter submitted on behalf of M.F. by Dennis Burke, another attorney with Frontier Solutions, represented that M.F. “has no intent to remain unlawfully in the United States” and that she continues to live in St. Luis Potosi, Mexico where she “enjoys a large network of family and friends, including her mother and sister who live nearby.”(2)In fact, the government’s investigation has revealed that M.F. had been living in the Albany, New York area for nearly a decade as part of the Nxivm community and" ... "further evinces a scheme to circumvent the immigration laws" cited as United States v. Raniere (1:18-cr-00204) Document 256, p. 5-7
The Newsweek article is pertinent to Burke's mention as it describes NXIVM's notorious "Ethical Science Foundation" (ESF):
[17]"NXIVM Doctor Accused of Conducting Illegal Human Experiments in 'Fright Study'" .. "A New York Supreme Court justice signed an executive order asking Porter and Clare Bronfman of the nonprofit Ethical Science Foundation to hand over documents on the human studies that were conducted for research,"
However a better article to cite might be the article cited by the Newsweek article itself, in the Albany Times Union:
[18] "The nonprofit Ethical Science Foundation was formed in 2007 by Clare Bronfman, who owns a horse farm in Delanson and is listed in public records as the trustee of and donor to the foundation. A state Supreme Court justice recently signed an order directing Bronfman and Dr. Brandon B. Porter, who is involved with NXIVM and conducted the human studies, to turn over all documentation associated with the research."
The disciplinary records from Burke's State Bar are here:
[19] "Respondent conditionally admits that his conduct, as set forth below, violated Rule 42, ERs 1.6 and 8.4(c)."
In summary, while I tend to agree the first link as it was submitted appears be a duplicate error, I suggest edits and corrections here. I can't imagine why anyone would block inclusion of Burke in the NXIVM article. It certainly is not "vandalism."
I am surprised he was not already included in the article, but maybe it takes time for the intricate details of a case to filter out to the public: Burke's name is memorialized in federal court documents specifically mentioning ESF, the Ethical Science Foundation where "Human Fright Experiments" were performed on hundreds of Women; In PACER Doc. #256, prosecutor Moira Kim Penza does link Burke to a NXIVM "scheme" (here, to "circumvent the immigration laws") as the author suggested; Burke certainly was a "Notable NXIVM participant", and everything here is of great interest to those of us who fight against the modern day exploitation of women. PolySciRBWGirl (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Sennecaster: Felt compelled to leave a note here after hearing yesterday's broadcast on Satellite radio about the nxivm lawyer Dennis Burke. Mr. Burke's actions to justify nxivm's human fright experiments on women were despicable. A strong feeling of emotions cannot be avoided. Mr. Burke is unique among the legal pool as the only lawyer named as a participant in nxivm's 'scheme' as others have written, to smuggle under-age girls in to Clifton Park, New York for the cult leader, Keith Raniere he was more than the cult's lawyer he was in on it himself. One can only wonder why Mr. Burke was not thus far charged by the government after the prosecutors named him as part of the nxivm scheme in the famous document 256 many of us have been familiar with since the trial last year. 75.186.99.160 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Without reliable secondary sources - which have not been provided - the content cannot be included. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

To everyone here; if you want to use Wikipedia to fight against the exploitation of women, that is not what we do. It’s a good cause, but our editing should not reflect that. We don’t make points, we just record what reliable sources say in a neutral point of view. I am a PCR who only comes here to make sure that the WP:5P are followed per pending changes and will be removing myself from this discussion as I am completely unknowledgable about NVIXM and what the issue is. My involvement would be clumsy from here on out. Good luck coming to a consensus,

Also, as mentioned before, court documents are primary sources and a prosecutor has obvious bias. Sennecaster (What now?) 15:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There is an unusual effort on display to prevent a reference to Burke in this article. As a general rule editors ought not to vigorously advocate for deletion of content on Wikipedia. See WP:DOUBT "When in doubt, don't delete." Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia of everything by everyone. See: Inclusionism If Burke has retained paid editors to 'save face' from his publication in the NXIVM article, that won't fly. See: Wikipedia:BRIGHTLINE One cannot help but question if paid editors are being used to instantly delete references to Burke. Don't make it personal See: WP:DLC

It is indisputable the character in question, lawyer Dennis Burke was deeply involved in NXIVM. Agreed with the above discussion it appears the post that caused a series of reversions on this article had a duplicate source link. Editors should consider re-writing the posted material about Burke from a neutral point of view. Many credible sources have been provided as to Burke's participation in NXIVM; If Suneel Chakravorty is included in this article, Burke as a notable NXIVM participant is even more convincing. It appears additional sources are available for citation if necessary. 100.1.25.90 (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sennecaster: The submission has been rewritten in a neutral tone. Thank you for your professionalism. PolySciRBWGirl (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting this out maturely. I hope this article goes well. It's fairly dispassionate in tone now and the consensus of inclusion has been established. Sennecaster (What now?) 19:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I removed it again. It is a BLP violation to suggest that Burke was a member (or 'participant') in this group without a reliable, secondary source saying explicitly that. That he represented them in court is not the same thing. That the government said something in a court filing is not a reliable secondary source. - MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I heard the same show on Sirius as the others posting here. They stated crystal clear numerous times Dennis Burke was the only lawyer who "participated" with the cult and the only lawyer singled out by the Nxivm prosecutor Moira Penza in 256 for "participating" in the cult's scheme about immigration. It was loud and clear and others posting here in talk already provided links to more documents for verification. 173.73.251.45 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
All that court document (which, again, is not a usable source on Wikipedia) says is that Burke submitted a letter. Submitting documents is routine activity for a hired lawyer. Even if we pretend for a minute that this is a source we can use for this article, that is a far, far distance from 'participated in a cult'. To support the sort of content that people have been trying to add to this article, we would need a reliable source (in this context a major newspaper, I would imagine), that explicitly makes a statement like 'He participated in the NXIVM.' - MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Letter to the editors, it is bad this Burke gets away with your to save him and remove from his name in the Wikipedia article after everything he did. Not any longer!!!! You should openly allow the truth be to your readers. Sincerely Leticia Rivera M. Wednesday April 14, 2021.

Holy heck. Why the monumental effort to keep Burke's name out of the Nxivm article? Anyone who followed the Nxivm story is familiar with Frank Report and Artvoice, Frank Parlato's blogs were adopted as the go-to sources for Nxivm news before and during the trial. The articles linked above on this talk page, #14-Artvoice, #15-Frankreport, and #16-Frankreport are adequate sources to reference Burke considering other references already made in the existing Nxivm Wikipedia article.
If we are going to say Frank Parlato's Frankreport/Artvoice articles are not reliable sources for this article on Wikipedia, then we will need to edit the already existing Nxivm article to delete sources #109 (Artvoice), #115 (Artvoice), #118 (Artvoice), #129 (Artvoice), #134 (Artvoice), #182 (Artvoice), #194 (Artvoice), #200 (Frankreport), and #201, (Frankreport), each already deemed acceptable over time for the existing Nxivm article on Wikipedia. That is nine existing citations to Artvoice and Frankreport already in this article but now the same sources can't be used to cite what we know about this lawyer, Burke's work inside the cult because why? 2600:8801:131D:C400:5C9D:CA89:9D04:E38F (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
It isn't a 'monumental effort' about one person, it is a standard effort to keep this article in compliance with Wikipedia's policies, specifically WP:BLP. Wikipedia does not use blogs as sources for statements about living people. Thanks for pointing out the other questionable sources, I will delete whichever of those are being used to make statements about particular people as well. - MrOllie (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@MrOllie: Do you mind telling us why you are assisting patriarchal efforts here to keep true facts about a bad man out of the Wikipedia article? Care to read the Newsweek article about NXIVM's "Ethical Science Foundation" (ESF) again? Here ya go: [20]. Catch that? "The exclusive report found that Dr. Brandon Porter, 44, forced actress Jennifer Kobelt to watch dismemberment and rape videos for a "fright study" he was conducting, the New York Post reported. "He continued to film my reaction for at least 10 minutes as I just sat there, dry heaving like I was going to puke and crying very hard," Kobelt, said in the complaint to the health department. NXIVM lawyer Dennis Burke enabled and defended NXIVM's human fright experiments on women. According to the documents, Burke assisted in concealing documents from Clare Bronfman's storage unit and was implicated by the nxivm prosecutor for helping Keith Raniere smuggle a teenage girl from Mexico. What the hell more do you need to understand Burke is more than a 'lawyer who filed a document'!! This isn't about expressing opinions. It's about including true facts in article that the world should know. 66.7.114.20 (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
My only concern is that this article be in compliance with WP:BLP. Find a better source to support it and the article can repeat whatever that source says about Burke. But your unsourced speculation here is tantamount to claiming that any defense attorney who has represented someone on death row is themself culpable for murder. - MrOllie (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@MrOllie:Not so, mister. How anyone could characterize one sentence with neutral factual statements arising from identical sources as at least nine other citations in the existing article as "unsourced speculation" is beyond this reader. Something else is going on here. On Burke's payroll, are you? Paid editor? Keeping your boy Burke's name out of the article, are you? Or do you work for Donald Trump and Billy Bush? 2603:6081:2407:DBD4:8D04:5D9E:CE8D:BFF8 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Also noting that I have posted a notice about this at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#NXIVM. - MrOllie (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Coming here from BLPN, I don't understand why we're talking about court documents, disciplinary records etc. Please find suitable sources of there's no point discussing this. If you're not aware of WP:BLP such as WP:BLPPRIMARY then you probably shouldn't be editing this article. Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Further Frank Report seems to be what you would expect, a self published source. I have no idea if the author is a subject matter expert, but it's a moot point. There is almost nothing in this article which won't involve at least one living person besides the author so it clearly falls foul of WP:BLPSPS. It doesn't matter how long it's been in the article, if you find a clearly unsuitable source for anything related to a living person, please remove it and anything sourced solely to it especially since this is a highly contentious article. I can't be bothered looking into Art Voice at the moment although anything which brands itself as "alternative" is automatically suspect when it comes to BLP in my book. However I will say this. If this is all so well documented as commentators above are suggesting why are earth are we relying on such questionable sources? Why can't editors trivially pull out the New York Times or the BBC or other very high quality sources so there is no question? Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
One final comment. About that Newsweek source, it's dated 2018 which you might expect since this only blew up around then. So per WP:RSPS it's not automatically reliable. It's possible this particular article is reliable but I don't see where this was established. And again I question if we should bother if this is so well documented as commentators have suggested. Let's just use the better sources which surely exist. Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed someone mention New York Post, which is an even worse source than Newsweek per WP:NYPOST. Also even if we put aside the questionable nature of 2013+ Newsweek, as pointed out at BLPN the Newsweek article linked above doesn't mention Burke. So it's irrelevant to what Burke may have done, the same as any other source which doesn't mention Burke. We cannot rely on WP:synthesis to make claims about Burke. This isn't even just a BLP issue, we cannot do that for anything. Frankly the more I look into this the worse it looks. Not only are people trying to use shitty unsuitable sources in relation to a living person, they're trying to use these sources when they don't even mention the person. It doesn't matter how bad Burke supposedly is. Unless reliable secondary sources mention it, we shouldn't either. All Wikipedians should be trying to keep out content which lacks sufficient sourcing especially in relation to living persons, no matter how they may personally feel about the person or how "factual" the content they are trying to add is. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I said "factual" above and admit I was being slightly facetious but I probably shouldn't have. What I was trying to say is that even if the content is truly factual, you should still generally want to keep it out in matters concerning living persons if you can't find sufficient sourcing. If you deal in BLP areas enough, there are plenty of times when you are sure something is true, but also doesn't belong because there is no real sourcing. The reason you should want to keep it out isn't simply because you might be wrong about it being true but that even if it is true it's clearly not significant if no one else cares about it, as evidenced by lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. There are a few cases when this puts you in an uncomfortable situation but this doesn't seem to be one of them. Those situations are ones where the result is apparent unfairness to the living covered, probably the most common example would be where sources covered some initial verdict or controversy or whatever but had forgotten about it by the time the verdict was overturned or new information emerged. In situations like this if you feel very strongly that information is significant but can't find sources, while that's unfortunate it should only compel you to look harder for sufficient sourcing but not to feel you should violate BLP by inserting it with such sourcing. Note I noticed there is what appears to be a secondary source for disciplinary action against Burke mentioned in his article but I have no idea what it has to do with this article since it was in 2014 so seems to long predate any controversy about NXIVM, so it seems unlikely it was in relation to his actions in representing NXIVM. Nil Einne (talk)

Suggestions from a journalist

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi there,

I'm Sarah Berman, a reporter based in Vancouver, Canada. If it's possible, I'd like to have my work for VICE properly cited by name, in line with the citations for Albany Times Union and New York Times reporters.

Currently citation 153 reads:

"The Alleged Plot to Put NXIVM's Critics in a Mexican Prison". vice.com. Archived from the original on October 9, 2020. Retrieved December 30, 2020.

If possible, would like that to be updated to:

Berman, Sarah (September 26, 2018). "The Alleged Plot to Put NXIVM's Critics in a Mexican Prison". vice.com. Archived from the original on October 9, 2020. Retrieved December 30, 2020.

(The story is still accessible on VICE's site here: https://www.vice.com/en/article/ev7pwk/the-alleged-plot-to-put-nxivms-critics-in-mexican-prison)

Would also suggest that my name similarly be added to this entry at the very bottom:

"Actress Who Allegedly Recruited NXIVM 'Slaves' Is Dancing for Prisoner Rights Now". Vice.

Finally, I'd like to suggest that my book, Don't Call It a Cult: The Shocking Story of Keith Raniere and the Women of NXIVM be added to the section on films, documentaries and books. It was published yesterday, on April 20, 2021, by Steerforth in the US / Viking in Canada.

I'm not super familiar with wiki edits, so if there's another way of making a suggestion like this, please let me know. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.184.249 (talk • contribs) 14:10, April 21, 2021‎ (UTC)

  Done Done! Thank you for the suggestion and for identifying as yourself! If you have any suggestions, just tell us right here and we'd love to see them! Feoffer (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, author checking in again, thank you for adding my name to entry 153. Much appreciated!

I'm still not seeing my name added to the appropriate place in the external links section. Should read:

Berman, Sarah (July 22, 2020). "Actress Who Allegedly Recruited NXIVM 'Slaves' Is Dancing for Prisoner Rights Now". Vice.

I'd also still like to see my book Don't Call It a Cult listed in the section of books and films. You can read about it in this week's New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/12/what-makes-a-cult-a-cult

Or find entries on Amazon and Goodreads: <bookstore link redacted> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53152544-don-t-call-it-a-cult

Happy to provide any additional information that might be required. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.184.249 (talk • contribs)

  Done on both! Thank you again for your excellent contribution to understanding of this subject. Feoffer (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of NXIVM influences image

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we suddenly learned Raniere loved basketball The standard for inclusion is a WP:Reliable Source discussing linkage to NXIVM beliefs and practices, not us going through Raniere's writings ourselves and trying to guess what we think influenced him.
Above you claim NLP and Scientology are not sourced, but actually, both topics are discussed extensively in reliable sources mentioned in the caption. As you may not have a copy of the print/ebook, here's an online source: "As Raniere slowly started to merge the tactics of control used by the Church of Scientology with NLP, NXIVM was born."
Similarly, we don't include Asimov because of Raniere writing on a defunct website that Asimov was a favorite author; It's because WP:Reliable Source makes that link. But they don't base it on "favorite author" claims, they cite this: Raniere quote: "It was at the age of 12, I read “The Second Foundation” by Isaac Asimov and was inspired by the concepts on optimal human communication to start to develop the theory and practice of Rational Inquiry."
What if we discovered he'd read Harry Potter? We'd add that too? If reliable sources reported that Harry Potter influenced NXIVM beliefs and and practices, absolutely we would! Suppose RSes talked about how an essential ritual of the NXIVM induction involved a sorting hat, absolutely that fact would merit inclusion in the article.
Inline-sourcing has been added to make it even clearer for readers. Feoffer (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Feoffer (talk)
Thank you for your explanation. I'll clarify my objections to this image.
I believe it is original research. It is not created by any secondary party, taken from a source. It is not like an image of the model of the solar system or a human cell that can be referenced and sourced as is accepted as fact. This is your interpretation of influences. Blavatsky for example. How can this be justified for inclusion in this image? Steiner? When I go searching through the sources there is sometimes only passing reference. In some cases, the source that is cited is a journalist writing their spin on the story. Like Tony Robbins exists, self-help gurus exist, Tony Robbins is mentioned by someone in an article and now Tony Robbins is listed as an influence.
This is your own work. At its core it is original research and I'll cite part of the article on this: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
I'm going to go further on this that some of the sources are secondary sources and not primary. They are referencing each other, drawing links not supported by a primary source.
Synthesis of published material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here."
This is very directly what this image is doing. This image and connections drawn do no exist in any of the sources cited. I cannot see how an image with "acting" in it as part of the flowchart isn't original research with you synthesizing various things together.
You have created and uploaded your own image, which is good as wikipedia needs images. However it clearly introduces unpublished ideas and arguments. Not any source presented support the synthesis that has been put forward.Thewritingfish (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Tony Robbins is mentioned by someone in an article and now Tony Robbins is listed as an influence. Robbins's influence is extensively discussed in the book-length work by Natalie & Hardin, as is Scientology, NLP, et al. Don't confuse the convenience sources provided to you here on talk with the actual sources used to write the article. Repeated accusations of Unsourced, after having been previously refuted, are not conducive to conversation. RSes are unanimous: Raniere was influenced by Robbins, and our text and images reflect that. Feoffer (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Robbins isn't the only thing I've pointed out however. You have acting in that image. And other philosophers. The navy. I am open to being corrected but I am very certain the book does not claim or support a sourced link between acting, Hubbard and then Raniere. I also asked about Blavatsky. Are you saying this image is entirely sourced and supported by the book? Including the extra extensions of sci-fi, acting, the navy? Crowley?
I don't think I've seen influences images like this before on Wikipedia, which is why it struck me as synthesized original research. I've looked and dug and read most of the references but I can't find the assumptions in this image supported. I found this: http://dyingwords.net/nxivm-the-crazy-sex-cult-of-keith-raniere/ which has the image and the text making the claims. But that's not a source.
From https://www.artvoice.com/2019/07/07/did-isaac-asimov-inspire-keith-raniere-to-be-the-mule/ "His other heroes are novelist Ayn Rand; Indian pacifist/freedom fighter Mahatma Gandhi; Austrian philosopher, Rudolph Steiner; hypnotist Dr. Milton Erickson; and judo teacher/acrobat Eugene Waddell. Raniere is not known to have met any of them." -- so why isn't Mahatma Gandhi in the image? Who determined what constituted "influence" and what warranted inclusion?
I have not read the book so I am asking is this the source of Blavatsky and the other philosophers listed in the image? Is there the explicit proven link drawn to Crowley?
I'd also like to understand why acting is in the image and why this is relevant and which source specifically supports that. I've never seen influence networks created like this that went multiple steps and included broad concepts like acting. Thewritingfish (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
why isn't Mahatma Gandhi in the image? Because Raniere's claims are not a reliable source, so no reliable sources cite Gandhi as an influence on Raniere. In contrast, sources do cite the influences of Rand , Steiner, Erickson, Acting and Judo on both Raniere and his organization. Feoffer (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NXIVM/Archive_2&oldid=1230451395"