Talk:The Family International/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Wikiproject?

I made these comments at Category talk:Children of God, but this topic could use a WikiProject, and also an article on Philip Sloan, most certainly notable enough. I could design a WikiProject, if there is participation and active involvement from at least a smattering of other editors... Smee 07:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm always up for joining another wikiProject. Considering this has its own wiki (though it's private not a Wikia) it seems notable enough. Tyciol (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

New template created

I have created a new template for related articles to this one. If you wish to add it to an article, simply add {{Children of God}} to the bottom of the article. Thank you. Smee 03:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Good job! Joie de Vivre 13:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Many articles added to Category:Children of God

I am glad that Smee was inspired to create this template; apparently the template was made shortly after I spent an hour mining for articles and adding them to Category:Children of God. There were so many that I created Category:Current and past members of the Children of God, Category:Books which discuss the Children of God and Category:People who researched the Children of God. It's good to see that others are interested in organizing these articles too! Perhaps more people will be interested to assist, now that there are more related articles easily available for referencing. Joie de Vivre 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wording of statement

Which way should the statement defining The Keys of the Kingdom be worded?

These spiritual keys are also believed to power various UFOs and other spacecraft (known as Key Craft), and can turn into swords for the purpose of fighting demons and other negative forces.
These spiritual keys are also believed to power various spiritual spacecrafts (known as Key Craft), and can turn into swords for the purpose of fighting demons and other negative spiritual forces.

All input is appreciated. hmwith talk 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My take is that the change was made by someone that knew whereof he spoke. It is interesting that the change made by the new editor makes the concept more understandable while the version enforced by Smee makes the concept look sillier. Or is that just me? --Justanother 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Children of God to really say anything either way, so that's why I'm asking. hmwith talk 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, then let's AGF that the new editor made a righteous edit. It looked righteous to me and I support it. --Justanother 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

xFamily Moving On These pages which describe "Key Craft" might be helpful. Joie de Vivre 23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The new edit is wrong, but does not bother me enough to revert (especially since it reads a little better). The Family does not consider Key Craft to be completely and strictly spiritual, since they believe many "spirit world" entities are able to take on physical form. (A sidenote is that the Family does not believe that all UFOs are powered by the Keys; just Key Craft.) As for inserting the word "spiritual" into "negative forces," again this is not quite accurate. Some examples of "negative forces" the Keys are often called on to fight are so-called apostates and non-sympathetic media. --Monger 01:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. Here is a line from Zerby[1]:

24. I prefer to call it the key craft‚ for this craft transports the might and power and energy of the keys. It is spiritual, yet more real than life itself. Instruments of man cannot detect it, yet it is real, it is in existence. It is powerful‚ and it is to assist you in these Last Days.

That quote and many other parts of that text explain the intrinsically spiritual (or Heavenly) nature of the craft. Presenting a religion's views of spiritual or heavenly craft as just some UFOs is a degradation and, given my long history with the WP:OWNing editor that edit-warred over the change and called it "nonsense", one that I see as deliberate. They believe in spiritual craft, not UFOs. Perhaps a fine difference but a difference nonetheless and if what may well be a knowledgable editor comes here and makes that distinction then I, for one, respect that.--Justanother 03:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. This is largely unrelated (since non-Key-Craft UFOs are not tied to the Keys of the Kingdom), but Family publications have frequently spoken about other types of UFOs which are spiritual in nature, and believe these explain some UFO sightings. They also have not ruled out alien existence or visitation, though such beliefs are not a big part of their doctrine by any means. --Monger 00:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite template

I don't disagree with the {{Cleanup}} template currently on the top of this article, but is the immediately following {{rewrite}} template really necessary? It says, "This article or section may need a complete rewrite." While I think the introduction might benefit from a rewrite, the placement of the template implies, at least to me, that it is referring to the entire article, and I do not agree with the template in that context. Joie de Vivre (who added the template) and other editors, what are your thoughts on this? --Monger 00:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like we interpret the word "rewrite" differently. The reason I placed the rewrite template is that I see the article as needing more than minor cleanup. I view the article as needing changes to the structure of the article as well as editorial work. I placed the template because the problem is not with the content or its accuracy, as the NPOV, TotallyDisputed, Original Research templates would indicate. The problem lies in the writing style (which is somewhat informal), and the way the information is organized. The basic structure is OK but it could be condensed and streamlined quite a bit. The divorce between the "History" and the "Issues" section is particularly vexing; as the timeline is presented without the interruption of governmental intervention and so forth, the rise of FREECOG, etc. Joie de Vivre 16:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Specific examples of what you are referring to are always better than generalisations. I am also strongly against placing {{Cleanup}} and {{rewrite}} tags without discussing it here first. Wikipedia articles will always need "cleanup" and "rewrites", but that doesn't mean we should place these tags on all articles. In fact, I think this article is much better than many articles not containing these tags. Until very specific examples (i.e., actual sentences, phrases, words, etc.) are given, I am in favour of removing both tags. --Thorwald 00:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading both Joie de Vivre's and Throwald's responses, I am neutral on the issue. I still don't like seeing those templates at the top of the article, but I appreciate the improvements being made. --Monger 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Teens 4 Christ?

Why does Teens for Christ redirect here? I see no mention of it in the article. I am trying to find information on the website teens-4-christ.org. DangerousNerd talk contribs email 20:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That is THE snazziest signature I have ever seen. Google "Children of God" and "Teens for Christ" together; there are some sources; here's one: from xFamily. Joie de Vivre 21:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Joie. I can't take credit for it though. Saw it on a guy over at Lostpedia. I'm actually changing it though because people have said it takes up too much space in the source. sigh Thanks for the info, too. And here, for the last time, is the sig. DangerousNerd talk contribs email 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Alas. :( Joie de Vivre 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag added

I have also placed a {{NPOV}} template in the article - the article is clearly written from a certain POV, this needs rectifying. Sfacets 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not specified the problems. Please specify what exactly is "disputed" and what changes you would have to see in order to fix the problems. Joie de Vivre 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There is so much that needs changing, both OR and POV. For example "fitting the definitions of a cult used by cult watch organizations and some government organizations" or "Theologians have placed TFI's basic theology or "A central tenet to their theology is the "Law of Love," which stated simply claims that if a person's actions are motivated by unselfish, sacrificial love and are not intentionally hurtful to others," All of which both do not attribute the claims to any particular person and which are mostly original research.

The whole 'Plagiarized art' section also appears to be OR.

These are just a few examples I have found while spending 2 minutes going through the article. Sfacets 07:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This article needs more citations. That much is clear. However, the items you pointed out are far from original research. They are simply lacking the "proof" of this provided by links to reliable sources (in most cases the claims could be supported by linking to the Family's own publications). I am removing the NPOV template again, and am personally opposed to adding it unless you point out issues which are actually contested by academics, researchers, or others who are familiar with the group. I'm not saying that is WP policy or that you don't fit such a description, but in any case I'd like to know more about what your actual problems with the claims are. --Monger 01:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The tone is far from objective. In fact, parts of the article appear to have been written by a cult member. Current cult members are seldom objective or completely honest about their cults, particularly when denying any legal wrongdoing. I don't understand the resistance here about acknowledging that the content may not be entirely reliable. Are you being pressured by the cult to discourage criticism? 91.132.202.96 (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Family members have been some of the most active editors of this and related articles. Some have tried to whitewash the content or simply remove information, but a few have tried to remain objective. Many excellent contributions have come directly from Family members, or as a result of their participation on talk pages. Based on the time of your comment, it appears you read this article in one of its "vandalized" states. This article would probably benefit from semi-protection, but it goes through many periods of relative stability (considering its controversial nature). --Monger (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless an editor states so on their userpage or something, there's no reason to assume editors are members. Furthermore, the divide between religion/cult being as gray as it is, christians aren't forbidden from editing christianity even though they might be biased in favour of it. This is ad hominem and should be avoided, criticize bad edits specifically, and if there's ongoing problems with disruptive edits by an editor viewed as unbiased then that's something to discuss with a moderator, not the talk page. Tyciol (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ricky Rodriguez murder/suicide

Again xfamily is a good resource as well as news reports but this is an integral part of the Children of God Story as he was a child of the founders and brought up in the Children of God and his claims of abuse especially against sibling Merry are substantial.

Removal of content

Links to the following in the See also section were removed:

Opposition to cults and new religious movements
Panton Hill, Victoria is a location of one of the communes, where a large government raid took place, and many children were removed by social services
Religious prostitution is a term which may describe Flirty Fishing
Love bombing describes a manipulative recruitment style
Third Culture Kids is a term which describes children who spent significant time in a culture outside their own
Missionary Kids is a similar term

FREECOG was one of the original groups that formed in opposition to a new religious movement, so certainly the first one should stay. The raid was the biggest news in years in Panton Hill, the second one should definitely stay. Third Culture Kids and Missionary Kids are terms used primarily in sociological contexts to describe children that spent a lot of time growing up in a culture that was not of their birthplace, family, or initial upbringing so there is no good reason not to have these. Love bombing... well, if you look at Flirty Fishing there is a strong argument for the "Family of Love" using this method. Religious prostitution, though it contains the word "prostitution", is usually used to describe "sacred whores" or "temple prostitutes" so I think is an appropriate description of Flirty fishing as well, they were having sex in order to win converts to the religion, often in exchange for money. Joie de Vivre 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

These are very flimsy connections. You wouldn't put a link to Adultery in the see also section of the Bill Clinton article... Sfacets 07:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- That they are "very flimsy connections" is simply an opinion and one I do not share (except for maybe Panton Hill). Children of members who joined this group are very much TCKs and MKs. FFing was very much a form of religious prostitution. There is an insane amount of opposition to "cults" and NRMs. Etc., etc. Everything I have just described is backed up by an almost endless list of sources. The content should, IMO, very much remain, as it is directly related to this group and this article about them. --Thorwald 03:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I find user:SFacet's comments here to be inconsistent with his stance on a "See also" section in another article. He insisted on on including the term "Dharma" in the "See also" section of "Sahaja Yoga" despite there being no sources to support the connection. When I suggested there was no obvious connection he said there was one, but when I added the very text he had written about the connection he deleted that too.[2] He appeared to be arguing that any connection between the topic and the term was sufficient for inclusion. The discussion is at Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 3#Dharma, and his relevant edits are here:[3][4][5]. How is this matter different? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooo look who's back. Stop taking my edits out of context (as usual). Sfacets 12:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my comment to Template talk:Children of God provided context as to your more recent removal of content at the template. Joie de Vivre ^T 13:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, actually what Will Beback is attempting to do is undermine my proposal by taking one of my edits out of the context in which it was made. Sfacets 13:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not "one" edit, it was several edits and a discussion. Please explain the difference between that case and this. How was the context different? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not Without My Sister

The book, Not Without My Sister (ISBN 978-0-00-724808-7) discusses the Children of God from the viewpoint of three of its former followers. Should this be included in the Media section, or should a separate article be written for it and included in the Books category? --JB Adder | Talk 00:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not the way it was intended. Enslaved by the cult of sex...for 25 years. By CELESTE JONES - More by this author » Last updated at 10:51am on 13th July 2007 Born into an evil cult, called the Children of God, sisters Celeste, Kristina and Juliana Jones were abused from the age of three. Torn from their parents, their childhood was dominated by the warped cult leader David Berg. [6]

Thank you for that, but I think the book mentioned in that article was already mentioned above. --59.154.24.148 04:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

River Phoenix quote

I'm not trying to defend the cult, but for the sake of accuracy: the way River is quoted makes it sound as if he had been sexually abused by an adult member, while what he really says is that he "made love" with other "kids"[7] and that he'd rather undo that. He doesn't connect it to the cult.--87.162.54.100 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the quote from Details magazine, from the scans you linked to above:

Is there anything you did at an early age that you wish you had waited for?

Yes—make love.

How old were you?

Four.

With whom? Another four-year-old?

Kids. But I've blocked it out. I was completely celibate from ten to fourteen. ...

River Phoenix was in the cult from age one or two (1972) until age six or seven (1977). I agree that the current mention in this article could be interpreted the wrong way. If no one else gets to it soon, I'll try to improve it. --Monger (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Train wreck

This article needs serious help. xfamily.org is not a reliable source and all material cited to that site should be removed. --Tom 15:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, why? What evidence can you provide that xFamily.org is "not a reliable source"? Also, where, specifically, does this article need "serious help"? It is easy to criticize, difficult to contribute. --Thorwald (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It fails WP:RS per self published material, extremist, ect . Also, I don't have a problem editing, except that I probably do it too much :) Anyways, --Tom 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your response tells me that you don't know much about xFamily.org. I just did a quick check on their 4600+ articles: Over 88% of them are direct publications of The Family International... verbatim. That is not "self published material", that is material of and by the group in question. Since this group is very secretive, xFamily.org is one of the only sources of information about this group. This group does not publish its internal documents. However, xFamily.org has obtained all internal documents published by this group from its beginning up until just a few years ago (see: pubs). It was also the first source of the photographs of their group's very secretive leaders. Call that a scoop, if you will. You also wrote that xFamily.org is "extremist"; please explain. You throw around criticisms, but can't seem to back any of them up. Anything you edit on this (main) article, I will closely watch. You will have to back anything you write up. --Thorwald (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I really hadn't planned on editing this article. I had removed alot of material from biographies that was sourced to xfamily.org since I still feel it fails to be a reliable source. Anyways, --Tom 21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)ps, the site is a Wiki?? Anybody can edit it, correct? So just as Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so to is this site. Do you have some agenda that should be revealed? --Tom 21:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)pss No need to anwswer after seeing this. Thanks --Tom 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Only the "editors" of xFamily.org can edit its articles. You still have not provided any specific (or real) reasons as to why you feel xFamily.org fails to be a "reliable source". Anyway, of course I have an "agenda". I want Wikipedia to be the best source of information and when it can not, point to other reliable sources. I find this group (morbidly) interesting and that is why I am committed to this article and to its sources. On this subject, The Family International, I challenge you to find a more reliable and exhaustive source than xFamily.org. Don't try, you won't find one. --Thorwald (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom, when you say you've removed "alot of material from biographies that was sourced to xfamily.org," I assume you're referring to the similar "plagiarized art" sections you removed from articles about several artists including Julie Bell. That content referenced official Family publications, but in any case I do not think it was really relevant outside of the Children of God article, so I've restored it here (with some minor changes) but left it out elsewhere. Additionally, I agree with Thorwald that your accusations and criticisms here have not been helpful. Please cite specific problems. xFamily.org does not fit the WP:RS description of self-published sources or extremist sources, the latter being a particularly disingenuous accusation. As for your insinuation of uncovering some kind of hidden agenda in User:Thorwald's edits based on his edit count (or something...I'm not really sure what you were suggesting), please try to assume good faith. --Monger (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are more/other sources for the plargiarized art business, can you please post them here? Anyways, --Tom 01:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is your objection to the xFamily.org site the fact that it is running MediaWiki as its publishing platform (even though it is not an open wiki)? I ask because the Flash presentation and Post-It GN that were already cited in the content you have again removed offer dozens of additional references to Family publications. I do not feel the claim of plagiarized artwork is so profound that it requires more than references to pretty much all of the Family publications that discuss the situation. What more are you looking for? --Monger (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Monger, I am looking for other sources (newspaper, book, magazine, ect) for the claim that somebody did something wrong, possibly criminal in nature, thats all. It seems that negative material should be particularly well sourced for this project. TIA --Tom 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

HBO Children of God : Lost and Found

Just saw this documentary on a streaming video site. Never knew about the COG until after watching this. This documentary was released in 2007, relatively recently. It sheds a new and more personal light on the atrocities that was ongoing within COG. To whom are interested I urge you to watch this if you have not already. turtleh (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"widely referred to as a cult"

From our own dear wikipedia: New religions are often considered "cults" before they are considered religions[12] by social scientists, and usually by Christian Evangelical/Fundamentalist theologians, and by the secular public – yet these three groups do not usually have the same understanding of the term "cult". People understand the term "cult" through the most popular usage in their cultures and subcultures, which can result in homonymic conflict, a communicative conflict with people who hold a different definition of the same term. This often results in confusion, misunderstanding, and resentment between members of "cult" groups and non-members.([[8]])

What I don't understand is why some editors take things so personally. We all know how controversial new religious movements are, so there is no need to be so biased and negative like contributions from ex family members. Just try to be factual without being emotional about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljordani (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Bretonbanquet asked for some references to my claim that The Family International is "widely referred to as a cult" (in fact, "sex cult" is even more widely used). Well, below are 114 sources/references/articles from just about every major newspaper or magazine around the world. Is that "widely" enough for you? Call it "clearly contentious" all you like, but Wikipedia should never be about political correctness. If there ever was a group that fit the definition of a "cult", it is this one. --Thorwald (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with political correctness. Nothing. The term "cult" is pejorative, thus its use is contentious for those who do not believe it to be a cult. Wikipedia is about providing verifiable information, particularly information that some people may have issues with. I am not saying CoG is not a cult - I am saying it's the kind of statement that can easily be cemented with a cite. Just pick one and put it in, then no-one can ever complain about it again, or revert you - it would have taken a whole lot less time than your above comment. Better make it a direct quote though, xfamily.org is hardly unbiased. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what Wikipedia is all about, as I have been actively editing for over four years. It is sometimes difficult to define "verifiable". What passes for verification? The above links took me all of five minutes (using vi and regular expressions) to post. You should really back up statements like "xfamily.org is hardly unbiased", especially when their main page states that they strive to "maintain objectivity". --Thorwald (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there some kind of medal you want for that? Anyway, surely any kind of verification is better than nothing, when there are people who remove information because they don't like it and it's not verified. You wanted the information on there, I was merely suggesting a way to stop people taking it off. Nothing more than that, and you appear to have taken it rather personally. I don't have to back up anything, it's my opinion - but we are supposed to take an organisation's word for their objectivity just because they say so? Most people are going to need more than that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The majority of content on XFamily is in fact news media archives and original Family publications. Some of the original articles on XFamily may not be completely objective, similar to how Wikipedia suffers from the same problem. Although XFamily is not a public wiki like Wikipedia, it is edited collaboratively by its editors and accepts outside contribution via a number of avenues. However, I can speak to the fact that it has no organizational bias. In any case, biases are not very relevant here because the links in Thorwald's list point to unedited content from major international news sources. The list could in fact be much longer, since it appears that Thorwald only included articles that use the word "cult" in their titles (not accounting for "cult" in article bodies). IMO, if XFamily were to compile a list of news media that referred to the Family as a "cult" or "sex cult", that would be a useful resource for this article. --Monger (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Widely referred to is not strong enough. Clearly every source that makes any comment about COG (besides those in the cult itself) considers COG a cult. Wikipedia, for all those who didn;t know, is about reporting what is verifiable. If the above list of 114 sources from the worlds most respected, international, sources (New York Times, BBC News, CNN, etc) from every end of the political and religious spectrum don't make something verifiable, then nothing can ever be verifiable and all of wikipedia should be summarily deleted. I am changing the introduction to say that COG is a cult, putting this article on my watchlist, and reverting it any time someone uses OR, biased sources, or plain vandalism to make a change. Oh and this article would also contradict itself without my change (check the heading people, even it calls COG a cult). Sas556 (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather then get into 3R War

Acoodrding to WP:LABEL: Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example:

"The Peoples Temple is a cult."
"The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization."
"Pedophilia is a sexual perversion."

Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral.

There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term. These three approaches are illustrated as follows:

"The Peoples Temple is an organization, described as a 'cult' by X,^[1] Y,^[2] and Z.^[3]"
"The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that has advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism."
"Pedophilia is a paraphilia."

We can not just label it a cult in the lede Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it: "referred to as a cult". If the 114 references above are added, I think "widely referred to as a cult" is approriate. If you really want to list all the organizations describing CoG as a cult, per the Peoples Temple example above, it would make the sentence a bit unwieldy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be a sperate subsection of the acusations, it is giving equal weight to popular opinion rather than acdemic facts. It is popular belief they are cult, Acdemicly fact they are NRM. Secondly i dont Give Weight to Rick Ross and xfamily as they are collection of artilces that A:violate External and citation link giudlines B. Soley exist to support a POV not inform leaving more artilces on the net that disagree with them.Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As for Peoples Temple, the present article has pseudo-religious, which doesn't seem much better than cult to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

People's Temple was not a Precedent it was an example quoted from a Wikipedia Guidline. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Children of God vs. Family International

Why is it that if the group's current name is the "Family International" the article still pops up as the "Children of God"? I think the main title of the article should be changed to the "Family International" as opposed to the "Children of God". The reasons being:

It might be found offensive to call a group by their former name as opposed to their current name.
On all other wikipedia articles the current name appears firstly, and the former afterwards.

We should consider this for change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb fisher (talk • contribs) 06:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the rule of thumb for article names on Wikipedia is to go with the best-known name or most likely search term. In this case, I think that Children of God is the more likely search term AND the better-known name. Family International redirects to Children of God (cult). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

While initially that is the more well-known term, it stands to reason that the longer they use 'Family International', the more well known that term will become, just as 'Children of God' becomes less well known with the passage of time. Considering all the changes that have occured in the organization and the large size of this article, maybe it would be valuable to split it into separate articles? They would of course reference each other, but one to describe the organization's past troublesome era as CoG and more recent issues as TFI? Tyciol (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I do not agree. They are far more well known as the Children of God and the article is far more likely to be found that way. We have all of the necessary redirects. These are not to different organizations; they simply just changed their name. The title should remain. --Thorwald (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

External links

Trimmed down EL sect, added {{No more links}}. It was beginning to become a linkfarm. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Children of God (cult) → Children of God — Children of God (cult) is clearly the primary topic: it is vastly more recognizable than an album, a novel, an English translation of a Hindi word, an 1800s religious group, or a song. — Whatever404 (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not so sure, the book with the same name won several big awards and was nominated for others. TJ Spyke 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
comment I was thinking of the novel, or the generic phrase when I saw the request... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Support But have 2 hatnotes, for the book and disambiguation page seperately, given the book is fairly notable. YeshuaDavid (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. Not even convinced that the book is all that notable, Sci Fi is exceptionally rich in awards, and it didn't win any of the really big ones, its Nebula Award nomination is probably its most significant recognition. The organisaton, on the oher hand, is one of the most significant of its kind. Andrewa (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - I believe the nominator overestimates the general awareness of the religious cult, so the disambiguation is helpful, as is the disambiguation page. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Many Christian sects refer to their members, or all humans, as children of God. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. The term is too generic. There doesn't seem to be one overwhelming meaning for children of god, so a disambiguation page seems like a good first stop on the road to discovery. - JeffJonez (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Family International

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved as originally proposed. Ucucha 16:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Children of God (religious group) → Family International — - added to Wikipedia:Requested moves by Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe this entry should be moved to Family International, the group's name today, per practice in multiple recent cult/NRM encyclopedias.
Beit-Hallahmi: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects and Cults (1998): Entry is called "The Family", alphabetised under "F".
Melton/Baumann:Religions of the World (2002): entry is called "The Family/Children of God", alphabetised under "F".
Clarke: Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements (2006): entry is called "Family, The".
Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religion (2009): Entry is called "The Family International" (alphabetised under "F").
While I would prefer Family International, with suitable redirects from Children of God (cult) etc., I could also support Family International (Children of God), an approach used in these encyclopedias: [9], [10]. --JN 466 16:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I agree. It was the move to Family International (New religious movement) (and "new religious movement" as a disambiguator, in general) that I objected to. However, we probably should go through the proper WP:RM procedures. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I propose we wait for a few days, and if there is no objection, then one of us can perform the move or ask for it to be made. Would you prefer Family International or Family International (Children of God)? --JN 466 19:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I apologize, I think this whole thing is nonsense, i was just trying to use the correct sociological term rather than the Neolgism "Religous Group", Family international is fine, redirects are more than sufficent and the "Formerly known as" is more than suffceint. we are not dealing with paper indexes like we are those books, redirects solve what in those books have to clarify. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Move to Family International (religious group)? There are many groups that could be described as international families. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Family International is unambiguous and redirects here already. I don't like the "religious group" moniker in the title; the lead sentence explains that. I'd also be happy with The Family International or Family International (Children of God). For reference, the group's website is here: http://www.thefamily.org/en/ --JN 466 14:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Doing a Clean Up later this week

This article has huge issues with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SPAM, WP:PRIMARY. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Family on Netflix

Under Media featuring the group it is stated, that:

2019 Netflix documentary series The Family covers the political influence of the group in explicit detail.

but the documentary is not really focusing on The Family International, right? But rather on The Fellowship, if I'm correct?

"Everyone should read"

There's a sentence in "The second generation" sub-section of "Issues" which says "Everyone should read the book, Not Without My Sister, by Kristina & Celeste Jones & Julianna Buhring, where they wrote their life stories of being in The Family International." That sentence seems pretty non-encyclopedic. The book should probably be a citation.

superman (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks for pointing it out. That section is badly in need of some citations. Actually it should probably be deleted if no citations are added. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The publication "Sex, Slander, and Salvation"

The publication Sex, Slander and Salvation that is referred to in the academic section is being so heavily criticized that I think I should mention it here. http://www.skeptictank.org/wsns.htm http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c26.html http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/J._Gordon_Melton

Question is if it should be referred to as an academic publication with all this critique. --83.248.239.86 (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This same issue was brought up on the discussion page for the article on J. Gordon Melton. I argued that, not only is Mr. Melton biased, he was actually paid by the Family International for writing favourably about them. Unfortunately, none of the other editors of that article agreed about the connection. --Thorwald (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think it could be reasonably justifed as having its own article as it was notable and relitavley controversial book. I would remind you though thowald that allegations on talk pages still qualify as BLP violations. Thorwald have you actually read the book? I have. its not screaming CULT CULT and is critical quite explicitly at times. Though there are some sections where the methodology is questionable or clearly avoiding thorny issues it is still cited often as RS in acedemic publications on the Family. Nor should we use primary sources that you were suggesting to make allegations that had not been cited by a reliable secondary source to make such allegations for us.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Sex, Slander, and Salvation created and has a WP:DKY creditThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Theologians have placed TFI's basic theology within the historical Christian tradition..."

Really? Which Theologians might these be? - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

xFamily.org

User:Hollywoodbob123 has recently been (quietly, at first) removing any references or links to the xFamily.org website. Hollywoodbob123 has made two claims about xFamily.org: (1) That it is "a dated, irrelevant and untrustworthy site. Note: viruses have been found on this and reported to spamcops"; and (2) "Information on [xFamily.org] is copy-write protected and is being illegally used without permission. Placing links to questionable [sic] is not a good practice for Wikipedia". I would like to know how Hollywoodbob123 has come to these (very explicit) conclusions about xFamily.org? Does Hollywoodbob123 represent TFI? If not, how does he/she know that xFamily.org is using material without permission? Anyway, the point to all of this is that I actually think xFamily.org is a very good resource on TFI. It seems to be the most comprehensive resource out there about this secretive group. The database containing nearly all of David Berg and Karen Zerby's writings, appears to be the most complete out there. I propose that those links be restored. --Thorwald (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If Hollywoodbob123 really did find "viruses" on xFamily.org, he should report that to them (rather than "spamcops") as they are actually in a position to fix the problem (if there is one). If "Hollywoodbob123" believes that "copy-write protected" material is being "illegally used," he should also report that in specific detail to someone who can actually do something about it rather than making vague statements in a revision comment.

However, I suspect Hollywoodbob123's defamatory statements about xFamily.org are not based on fact but simply on his personal and professional animosity towards the existence of xFamily.org which in only a few years became the largest primary source archive of information, documents (including thousands of pages of legal records), images, video and audio related to Children of God/The Family. The wiki part of it is rarely updated and some its content could be fairly described as "dated" but that is not a sufficient reason to exclude an external source. Manicmoe (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This is a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Note also that it appears Hollywoodbob123 and Samantha1rouge (both of them newly registered) are in fact the same person (i.e., same IP address) and that violates Wikipedia's rules; especially with respect to WP:EDITWAR. This is actually grounds for being banned on Wikipedia. --Thorwald (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. User:Franklinrailroad continues to remove links to xFamily.org without discussing their removal here first (as I have repeatedly asked he/she do). We have already discussed the inclusion of these links many, many times before (and not just counting the above; see the archives) and the consensus was to keep them. The only reason I can find why he/she keeps removing them is simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't wish to get into a edit war (and this user might be bordering on an WP:3RR violation), so could other editors comment on this and help us out. Thanks! --Thorwald (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

External links

I noticed that there was a category for "other" links that repeated the links that were in the "sites by former members" section. Since this is an unnecessary repetition of links I have removed the "other links" category. I also question the fact that there are 2 links to the same site in the "sites by former members" section? I have not edited this yet as I wanted to receive feedback from the editors first. Newsocleo (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe we should have sites belonging to current or former members at all. That's not what the external links section is for. Some of the sites are defunct, some contain documents reproduced in violation of TFI's copyrights. I also question the inclusion of xFamily sites. What makes those sites reliable? They contain many unverifiable anonymous reports. They also host documents in violation of copyright. In general, we don't list self-published "anti" sites unless there is sufficient editorial control, etc. per WP:EL.

For now I am removing the current and ex-member sites. Wikipedia is not a web directory, these sites are self-published, and they just don't meet WP:EL. Yworo (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree to remove these external links. I will go ahead and assist with this, and make sure that the page is not a web directory. I don't believe these links have any reason to be on this page.Franklinrailroad (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, there was no consensus on this, you went ahead and did it, it was pointed out there was no consensus and your edit was reverted. You then went ahead and edit the page again to remove the links, falsely stating in the edit summary there was a consensus. I am not putting it back ATM to avoid a possible edit war, but IMO these links DID belong, as xfamily.org is the defacto authority on the topic, and as significant and notable to the topic as the actual home page of the organization. Snertking (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. I now see that User:Franklinrailroad is a confirmed sock of User:Asmitriver and User:Samantha1rouge and has been blocked. Barring any objections i will restore the links in a day or so. Snertking (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

HERP DERP... Never mind. I see Authur Rubin already undid that. Snertking (talk)

Sexual Abuse

I intend to add a section on systemic sexual abuse if I can find the appropriate materials. Such as: "I am totally satisfied that there was widespread sexual abuse of young children and teenagers by adult members of The Family, and that this abuse occurred to a significantly greater extent within The Family than occurred in society outside it. " - Findings of the High Court of Justice Family Division, U.K. Excerpts from the Judgement of THE RT. HON. LORD JUSTICE WARD - Oct 19, 1995 W42 1992 http://www.exfamily.org/the-family/court/davidito-book.htm 69.245.72.101 (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

which also had some fallout here: http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/miss-indonesia-subject-of-legal-battle/347306 I just don't feel like I've got a grasp on it all yet. Anyone more knowledgeable about this issue?69.245.72.101 (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Particularly disturrbing, a young man on a rampage claiming sexual abuse at hands of the Family int. http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_dca170e9-0c0c-50f8-991b-a5f5d0f696f8.html 69.245.72.101 (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)edit, this one's already in there actually. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. That was Ricky Rodriguez aka: Davidito, the adopted son of Berg, the founder of COG/The Family.Snertking (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Article is going to need a pretty drastic rewrite

I see that xFamily.org has been discussed above somewhat, but it clearly needs to be brought up again. Regardless of whatever opinion you hold on the site or the cult or whatever, it is pretty undeniable that xFamily.org does not qualify as an appropriate site to use as a source for claims made in this article. It does not, by any stretch of the imagination, meet the rules outlined in WP:RS.

Furthermore, if it does republish old content from other sources without permission, this is a clear copyright violation. Wikipedia rules on copyright state that we do not link to sites that violate copyright.

There are other sites and mostly message boards that were actively being promoted in the article. Message boards do not meet WP:EL rules for links in an external links section and clearly are not appropriate as external links in the body (as those are not allowed at all) and, again, do not meet WP:RS rules.

It is disturbing that some users above seem to be defending the inclusion of these sites in the article just because they like them and not because they meet Wikipedia's rules and policies. It's funny how they complain about IDONTLIKEIT when there are real problems that were raised and ignored.

Considering how much content is sourced or dependent upon these sites, the article is going to need a massive rewrite. I have already pulled the most blatant violations of Wikipedia policy, but a lot more needs to be done. Surely there ought to be plenty of sources that meet WP:RS rules that could be used instead. If there are not, then we have a different problem. Right now, though, from the content and some dodgy comments above, the article as it stands has a very particular viewpoint to express, which is a violation of WP:NPOV rules.

I'll have to go see how the controversy over editing of the Scientology article was handled by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, because whatever they came up with there is likely applicable here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Educational tv series

Anyone knows if they had a TV series for children? thanks, Austral blizzard (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I answer myself, Treasure Attic and Kiddy Viddy, it could be interesting to have this articles on Wikipedia,cheers Austral blizzard (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"Spirit helpers"

On the list of "Spirit Helpers", along with Marilyn Monroe and the Sphinx, is included "the Snowman". Could someone possibly expand on or clarify this? Cactus Wren (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP, NPOV, etc.

I'm going through this article pruning all kinds of material added by what are obviously two opposing sides. I have removed rnverified, non-neutral, promotional material, as well as a huge load of material that is either unsourced or improperly sourced, material that in its current state simply violates the WP:BLP. For the record, I do not consider xfamily.org, which appears to be a kind of Wiki for disgruntled former members of this group, a reliable source, and it is entirely possible that the site hosts copyright-violating material as well. Material I am removing also includes stuff that has only primary sourcing.

I want to alert editors to the possibility that if the edit warring and the non-neutral editing and the soapboxing etc. continues, there is a real possibility that this will end up before ArbCom, and no one wants that, least of all me. Please be wary of policy. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Family International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Outdated

I happen to be a current member of TFI and I find your info to be quite outdated. If anyone wants to know up to date relevant information about TFI you can look it up or contact TFI on either website http://www.thefamilyinternational.org/ or http://tfionline.com/. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.180.245.247 (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

yw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.217.115 (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Add to the section The Family International (2004-present)

Shepherd, G., & Shepherd, G. (2005). Accommodation and reformation in the Family/Children of god. Nova Religio, 9(1), 67-92.

The Love Charter is the families set governing document. It entails each members rights, responsibilities and the requirements needed. The purpose in making this document was to solidify the Family's basic rules so a person or family could have better responsibility in making decisions. This charter increased the number of single family homes as well as homes that relied on jobs such as self-employment and system jobs.

Izzy Chelini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzychelini (talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Family International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Title change proposal. From "Family International" to "The Family International"

The article title should be in line with the organization's official name, as seen on the "TFI" site (the title and use in the content). http://www.thefamilyinternational.org. It clearly shows the organization's name is "The Family International", similar in format to "The Salvation Army." (Note: The Seventh-Day Adventists' official name is "Seventh-Day Adventist Church"--no "the". https://www.adventist.org/en/). Of course, in text, the "The" of an organization's name is not usually capped, although it usually is capped in the first instance of an article/essay/press release, etc.

If no objections, perhaps in a few days the title change process could take place, as outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_a_page, by anyone adept at such. Kibbitzer 19:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibbitzer (talk • contribs)

Yes, The Family is the correct name for this group, and IMO this should be moved to The Family International, but there is an existing redirect, so a sysop will have to move it over the redirect. generic_hipster 16:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Support. We should consistently use the official names of religious groups. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I also support this. The name of the organization includes the word "The" and so we should as well. Does anybody oppose this? FULBERT (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate Rollback

Greetings. I'm new on this page, but certainly not to Wikipedia. I have been a financially contributing user of Wikipedia for years. I'm sorry to start a new topic. Feel free to instruct me if there is another protocol for this. (The rest of this message deleted by myself, when I learned it should be addressed on another site.JohnnyJohnnyG (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC))

WP:FOC. Discussing editors here is disruptive and can get you sanctioned. Complaints about behaviour belong only at WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see, my sincere apologies. That is indeed, why I started off by saying, "Feel free to instruct me if there is another protocol for this." I'll take up the issue at WP:AIN and also let the editor in question know what the issue is. Thank you. JohnnyJohnnyG (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

And before making such a complaint it would probably be best to sort any issues amicably on the user's Talk page. However, questions of content should be discussed here. Alexbrn (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing?

I know there are some minor mentions of the sexual exploitation and misconduct but overall the article seems quite a it whitewashed. I only just learned about this cult after reading about River and Joaquin Phoenix yesterday and reading through several sources, I'm wondering why the Story of Davidito/Davidito letters aren't even covered here. I realize Rodriguez is linked but I would think given the wide coverage and significant impact the letters had. I'm just wondering if there was some past discussion about this or what. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Family International → The Family International – The organization name (e.g., as given in the opening sentence and the official website name "thefamilyinternational.org") seems to include "The", and the name is abbreviated TFI, not FI, so it seems a bit strange to omit the "T" in the title of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Support. Starting an article title with "The" is generally discouraged unless it is unambiguously part of the name. In this case it certainly seems to be. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Support Daask (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

yeah i know that the category is controversial

In the very beginning of the article, it says that "TFI is a cult". That's the basis for adding this article into [[Category:Cults]]. Tony85poon (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"removed Category:Cults which is for articles about cults in general, not specific organizations" This edit summary by another editor is a good one, give credit to where credit is due, I just repeat here. Tony85poon (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of links

I noticed that back in September 2019 someone removed a whole bunch of links in three successive edits without edit summaries or any explanation here on the talk page. All of the links appear to be critical of the organization. I think they should probably be restored, but maybe someone with more experience editing this page should weigh in first. I haven't been here before and may be missing relevant context. (The edits in question) 67.188.1.213 (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Cult vs. New religious movement

For a more neutral point of view, wouldn't it be better to call TFI a new religious movement instead of a cult? The latter term seems to be deemed as a derogatory synonym for the former. Why not to use the more neutral term? --Brandizzi (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We have already gone over this. The consensus was to refer to this group as a "cult" (almost by definition). --Thorwald (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That source is highly outdated, and does not show any consensus --Theobvioushero (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Brandizzi It does carry a very harsh tone. Does anyone know why Thorwald is intent on slandering this organization in particular? He has done more changes than anyone else, look at the history of the page, it's almost obsessive. Personal vendetta? If so, save it for your blog maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmitriver (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Wikpedia is not a blog. If you don't have something useful to contribute towards improving this article, this is not the place to throw around accusations. PS: Yes. I have edited this article a lot. The obvious reason why is that I wish to make it a good article.

I agree that you should not be using Wikipedia as a blog, that was my point. It should also not be a platform to promote a single persons ideologies or vendettas, which is what you have turned this into. If you are truly interested in making this it a good article, why all the grammer errors? Why all the inaccuracies? And why are you intent on using dated, inaccurate information to lambast the organization? It's very obvious that you have some kind of vendetta. New Religious movement is perfectly acceptable wording for this organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmitriver (talk • contribs) 05:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Brandizzi perhaps we should make a new consensus and challenge the use of the word "cult"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmitriver (talk • contribs) 05:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Brandizzi and Asmitriver I also agree that he word cult is not a word that reflects this group. 'Christian communal group' seems more appropriate. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/701799/The-Family-International Franklinrailroad(talk) 05:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(Would all of you new editors, if you are different people, please follow WP:TALK in terms of indentation.)

I just went through and edited the formatting for readability, by updating indentations and adding bullet points. Theobvioushero (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"Cult" is a perfectly respectable term for this organization; it's what most reliable sources call it. Britannica is not a reliable source for our purposes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Family International/Archive 1#"widely referred to as a cult" for the previous discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin "Cult" is not in any way a respectable term, and I don't know what "purposes" you are referring too. Further, Britannica is in many ways a more reliable source than Wikipedia itself. I will go ahead and change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmitriver (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You will probably be blocked if you change it back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And Britannica is a reliable tertiary source; but we have 142 reliable secondary sources which call this organization a "cult". We prefer secondary sources to tertiary sources, especially for opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Cult is indeed the appropriate word to be used. Especially given the historical context, since the existence of Children of God/The Family directly gave rise to what is widely considered to be the first "anti-cult" activist group. Snertking (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Heck, i'd even go one step further and propose the text be changed to "destructive cult" with citations to the many WP:RS sources that use the term describing them. They certainly would meet at least one of the definitions given in the destructive cult article.Snertking (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

on second thought, better yet, as WP:BLP issues apply here, how about something along the lines of: "is a New religious movement characterized by reliable news sources as being a Destructive cult"Snertking (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If the consensus was that the Family International is a cult, then why has it recently been changed to a new religious movement by a single author? 143.176.56.102 (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the evidence, I also Support moving this to Cult and not as a new religious movement (which is not consistent with what TFI seems to be). FULBERT (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

How long before we can close the rfc? There was consensus in 2012 and it looks like there still is, since nobody is contesting. 143.176.56.102 (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI 56.102, you - as the instigator - can close this whenever you want. You probably didn't need to start the RfC until there was deadlock here on talk. The onus is on others to overturn the old consensus if they want a change, not on you to 're-prove' it. Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the archived discussion and I don't see much of a consensus. in any case, I think the word "cult" should be removed, unless a source can be found that is more academic and neutral than the 2 sources given. In both cases these are evangelical Christian sources, who define things as suits them. Now I personally think this group is highly questionable at best, and I would say "cultish" in my private life, but unless a better source can be found, I would remove "cult". Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The main issue, which has been largely unmentioned, is the fact that labelling the organization as a "cult" rather than "new religious movement" violates Wikipedia's policy regarding a Neutral Point of View. As many have pointed out, the word "cult" is derogatory and reflects personal bias. Although some have voiced support in calling the group a cult, no one has challenged the fact that the word is biased. So, until this claim gets challenged, the word "cult" remains as a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Theobvioushero (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is years old now. If you want to renew the discussion, please start a new section. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

cult in the lead, NPOV, wp policies

First of all the IP is not completely wrong asking for more neutral in the lead in doubt. Second- and more importantly if a negatively connotated term is used for a description it needs to well sourced. So to use the term "cult" here it needs to be backed up to very least by reputable mainstream media sources better yet by scholarly literature. The websites currently cited seem to fall way short of that in fact at a first glance they might not be a valid sources at all for WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S.:@Alexbrn: It is already here and frankly so far I don't see any argument by you that justifies to keep the term "cult". So you need post a convincing justification here (rather than others you've redirected here) or it will be removed again.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

In all due fairness, Kmhkmh, Alexbrn could just be busy doing something else. I would wait for a while before removing anything. 79.66.4.79 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for rushing anything here and characterization as "cult" might even turn out to be appropriate. But be that as it may, eventually such a claim will need a valid source or it has to be removed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, to whomever is reading this. I think that calling the TFI a cult in Wikipedia's voice violates NPOV, because the sources that are used in the article to serve as references to it being a cult are not really what I would call scholarly. The fact that it's veritable doesn't mean it should be there. Otherwise, Wikipedia's pages on the Catholic Church could be flooded with lunatics calling it a cult because it's "veritable" (just using an example that came to mind. Have no doubt that TFI is a cult, but strongly disagree that calling it a cult in the first sentence of an article is NPOV, because "new religious movement" could work just as well -- and it's a term without bias, too.) 79.66.4.79 (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

A source needs to be as strong as the claim made; since you say TFI is "for sure" a cult this seems like an obvious classification, so doesn't require super strength sourcing. No need to be coy about it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You want the (strong) claim "cult" in the article and hence you need to provide a proper source for it and so far you haven't (as explained above).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That was my own POV. To me, it's obviously a cult, but to others it may not be. Why not use "new religious movement" instead? Much less biased. And as much as I like to read the sources you're referring to, (I love to research NRMs and probably could tell you loads and loads about them) they obviously have a bias. Using new religious movement instead of cult is much more NPOV. 79.66.4.79 (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Where are these imaginary people who don't think it's a cult? It fits the definition of cult like a glove, and is obviously so. If you want stronger sourcing start here[11] maybe, but don't water-down reality. That (in fact) is what NPOV demands. Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Members don't think it's a cult, for one example. I am sure there are non-members who don't think it's a cult, but suspect they're not numberous. In any case, there are people who don't think it's a cult. NRM is much more neutral, in my view. Apologies if I'm annoying you, simply don't agree that using cult in the first sentence is NPOV. (Hope you're having a nice day by the way) 79.66.4.79 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

better sources to potentially replace the (invalid) current sources for the description as cult

Based on those and a few other the term "cult" seems appropriate even for the lead. However the current sources would need to be replaced by some of the above or any other sources passing the requirements of WP:V.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh and Alexbrn: Frankly, I don't think any number of sources legitimates calling a group a "cult" in the voice of Wikipedia on any article. I believe this is inherently a derogatory term used by detractors, and scholars have long since abandoned this term in favor of the term "new religious movement". We can certainly say that people call it a cult. Daask (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy against derogatory terms. "Cult" is well-sourced, so let's not water it down, that would violate our requirement for neutrality. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above poster. It seems inherently POV to describe an organization as a cult. As the word is based on opinion rather than objective fact. And even if it was an objective term, it seems similar to starting an article with "Justice League is a flop", "Tupac Shakur is a convicted rapist", or even "The Ku Klux Klan is a terrorist organization." It seemed very outside of Wikipedia's typical style and voice for the first sentence of an article to be "____ is a cult." It would seem much more within Wikipedia's POV standards to start the article with "TFI is a modern religious movement founded in..." and then go on to say "Many have described TFI as a cult." or "TFI is listed as a cult by ____". Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of scholars having given the term "cult" (depending on the context) and certainly haven't replaced it universally by "new religious movement". Generally WP is supposed to use the terminology used scholarly and rather reputable sources, if you want to make an argument against the term based on WP policies/guidelines, you would need to provide sources. Then they can be compared against the current and if they turn out to be more reputable and recent, then "cult" could be replaced by whatever those sources use. But without such sources it's a non-starter.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Although there are several sources that call the group a "cult", virtually all the sources that have been presented, both here and in the original article, are biased and unacademic. If we look at academic sources, rather than biased ones, we see the repeated use of "new religious movement" rather than "cult".^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Therefore, in order to stay in compliance with Wikipedia's policy regarding a Neutral Point of View, the term "new religious movement" should be considered to be the appropriate label. Theobvioushero (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This section is over a year old. Please start a new discussion if you want to continue this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Raine, Susan (2015). "Flirty Fishing in the Children of God: The Sexual Body as a Site of Proselytization and Salvation". Marburg Journal of Religion. 12 (1). doi:10.17192/mjr.2007.12.3608.
^ Johnson, Benton (1992). "On Founders and Followers: Some Factors in the Development of New Religious Movements". Sociological Analysis. 53: S1–S13. doi:10.2307/3711247. JSTOR 3711247.
^ Harvey, Sarah; Steidinger, Silke; Beckford, James A. (14 December 2017). New Religious Movements and Counselling: Academic, Professional and Personal Perspectives. ISBN 9781317088080.
^ Shepherd, Gordon; Shepherd, Gary (2010). Talking with the Children of God: Prophecy and Transformation in a Radical Religious Group. ISBN 9780252077210.
^ Shepherd, Gordon; Shepherd, Gary (2005). "Accommodation and Reformation in the Family/Children of God". Nova Religio. 9: 67–92. doi:10.1525/nr.2005.9.1.067.

Cult vs. New religious movement (again)

Labelling the organization as a "cult" rather than "new religious movement" violates Wikipedia's policy regarding a Neutral Point of View. As many have pointed out throughout the talk page, the word "cult" is derogatory and reflects personal bias. Although some have voiced support in calling the group a cult, no one has challenged the fact that the word is biased. So, until this claim gets challenged, the word "cult" remains as a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Theobvioushero (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I would differentiate between NRM and cults: NRM are about faith (beliefs), while cults are about faith (beliefs) + deviant or self-damaging behavior. E.g. Blavatskyan Theosophy is about beliefs since it does not claim that your money and your sex life now belong to us. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Not only is this definition unacademic, it is way too broad. Circumcision, for example, would be a self-harming practice, but Judaism is not generally considered to be a cult. Similar things could be said about voluntary martyrdom, asceticism, fasting, self-flagellation, etc. Theobvioushero (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This is academic. Reliable sources call it a cult, therefore we call it a cult. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote above in the "cult in the lead, NPOV, wp policies" section, the sources that call it a "cult" are generally biased. If we look at academic sources, rather than biased ones, we see the repeated use of "new religious movement" rather than "cult". ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] And again, the definition of "cult" that has been provided is way too broad and would include a number of mainstream faiths. Which academic sources are you referring to that use this definition of "cult"? Theobvioushero (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

We do not solely restrict ourselves to academic sources, because frankly academic sources aren't going to cover a topic like this very much. So that point is moot. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, academic sources don't necessarily have to be our only source, but they should not be discarded either. We need to remember that academic sources are "usually the most reliable sources", and that we should "try to cite current scholarly consensus when available". Based on the sources that have been provided, the "current scholarly consensus" is to refer to the group as a "new religious movement" rather than a "cult".

However, this isn't even the main issue. The sources that call it a "cult" are clearly biased. The unbiased sources that have been provided call it a "new religious movement" instead. So, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy regarding a Neutral Point of View, this organization should be called a "new religious movement". Theobvioushero (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Completely disagree. I'd suggest you take it up with WP:NPOVN to seek further input, but you'd have to show how those sources are biased first before they can be disregarded. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

If you disagree, then explain why.

I pointed out that the word "cult" is biased. You did not refute the fact that it is biased, but instead justified using the term because, according to you, "reliable sources call it a cult". However, I pointed out that the "most reliable sources" based on Wikipedia's policies, call it a "new religious movement", rather than a cult. This negates your argument. Do you have a response to this?

Again, I pointed out that the term "cult" is biased, while the term "new religious movement" also accurately describes the group and is unbiased. Do you have a response to this? Theobvioushero (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly since 2004. There is not agreement that "cult" is a biased term. Again, if you want to seek outside opinions, you've been presented with an option for doing so. Until you do so, I suggest you stop WP:BLUDGEONing the talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Since you brought up a new point, I will quickly point out that no one has previously claimed that the term is unbiased or that it does not violate the NPOV. Instead, those who support calling it a "cult" have focused their discussions around other issues. With that being said, I will move this discussion to the other page. Theobvioushero (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Theobvioushero has opened a NPOVN discussion regarding the subject: WP:NPOVN#The_Family_International. Cambial Yellowing❧ 17:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Saw this at NPOVN. "Cult" seems apt & neutral per the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

wp:blp still applies, but "Sex Cult" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/11/children-of-god-church-sex-cult-texas-mexico-fbi, "cult" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-44613932, "religious cult" https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a29374581/children-of-god-cult-joaquin-phoenix-rose-mcgowan/. That's enough for me to say we call it a cult.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that the descriptor "cult" is appropriate. It's also worth noting that "new religious movement" and "cult" are not mutually exclusive terms. A cult can be a religious movement, and many cults are. I don't like to speculate on people's motives, but I can think of only one reason someone would resist calling this obvious cult what it is. Loquacious Folly (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

xfamily.com as a source.

This article cites the xfamily.com wiki and/or primary-source material hosted on the xfamily.com website as source in several places. A discussion regarding the related Flirty Fishing article on the reliable sources noticeboard [12] seems to be reaching a consensus that this source cannot be cited in that article, and everything stated there in regard to the wiki seems equally relevant here, meaning that citations will need to be removed, and alternate WP:RS sources directly supporting the relevant material be found. Fortunately this article seems much less reliant of xmamily.com than the Flirty Fishing article, so this should be less of a problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Izzychelini. Peer reviewers: Cfurey.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[1] Raine, Susan (2015). "Flirty Fishing in the Children of God: The Sexual Body as a Site of Proselytization and Salvation". Marburg Journal of Religion. 12 (1). doi:10.17192/mjr.2007.12.3608.

[2] Johnson, Benton (1992). "On Founders and Followers: Some Factors in the Development of New Religious Movements". Sociological Analysis. 53: S1–S13. doi:10.2307/3711247. JSTOR 3711247.

[3] Harvey, Sarah; Steidinger, Silke; Beckford, James A. (14 December 2017). New Religious Movements and Counselling: Academic, Professional and Personal Perspectives. ISBN 9781317088080.

[4] Shepherd, Gordon; Shepherd, Gary (2010). Talking with the Children of God: Prophecy and Transformation in a Radical Religious Group. ISBN 9780252077210.

[5] Shepherd, Gordon; Shepherd, Gary (2005). "Accommodation and Reformation in the Family/Children of God". Nova Religio. 9: 67–92. doi:10.1525/nr.2005.9.1.067.

[6] ttps://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/ep/0004/article/view/3608

[7] ttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3711247?seq=1

[8] ttps://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0TFDDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT177&dq=%22david+berg%22+%22children+of+god%22+%22new+religious+movement%22&ots=UI1Gr9yubl&sig=PoJfUR5970xvbipeb2aMFaFK1JA#v=onepage&q=%22david%20berg%22%20%22children%20of%20god%22%20%22new%20religious%20movement%22&f=false

[9] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=EoPutBvZS5oC&lpg=PP1&ots=rSnib79Uyo&dq=%22david%20berg%22%20%22children%20of%20god%22%20%22new%20religious%20movement%22&lr&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false

[10] ttps://online.ucpress.edu/nr/article/9/1/67/95514/Accommodation-and-Reformation-in-The-Family

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]