Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:07, 5 February 2007

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Sociologist shows "Moonies" are actually fairly normal, August 12, 1998

Reviewer: edpoor@mailexcite.com from Long Island, NY

Sociologist Eileen Barker spent considerable time "on campus" watching both old-time and potential Unificationists. She dispels the myth that the Unification Church uses some extraordinary set of techniques to trick or coerce people into joining (her statistics show that only a tiny percentage keep up their contact even after spending a whole weekend at a workshop). Although Barker never warms to the church (no accounting for taste <g>), she presents a detailed and remarkably fair viewpoint, which may dismay both those who have preconceived notions about the church and those who think it should not be criticized at all.

Raw material for the article:

One good indicator of the non-existence of mind-control techniques is the ineffectiveness of NRM recruitment programs. "Eileen Barker documents that out of 1000 people persuaded by the Moonies to attend one of their overnight programs in 1979, 90% had no further involvement. Only 8% joined for more than one week..." 4

Another indicator of the non-existence of mind control is the high turnover rate of members. Eileen Barker mentions that there is a 50% attrition rate during the members' first two years.

A personal encounter

I met Ms. Barker at an AAR conference in November. When I gushingly praised her Making of a Moonie, she acted suspicious, immediately asking What do you want and complained that I was "love-bombing" her. J. Gordon Melton, sitting next to her, made no comment.

She interviewed me briefly and took my address. Uncle Ed 14:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What is she doing at the AAR. I thought she was British. Why don't you write the article The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing? ? Seems like a notable sociology book. I only send her a video over the post upon her request. I never met her. Andries 22:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Everybody who writes about cults and NRMs is controversial

Where is the indication or proof that Eileen Barker is more than average controversial compared to other people who write about cults and NRMs? Andries 21:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, she is not "more controversial". But please see the recent discussion at Margaret Singer. Tanaats 21:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I did. I placed a citation tag for the word controversial there too. Andries 21:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Tanaats 21:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she is even more than average controversial :)

A good source would be the recent paper by Prof. Alexander Dvorkin, which you can read here: . It's also available as a WORD file somewhere, can't find where :( She and Melton are really the worst of this kind, i.e. the ones that really do accept favours. --Tilman 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Dvorkin really hits the nail on the head. Tanaats 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How does the following article support the statement that she is controversial? I do not see it.

• <ref name="Dvorkin">, Professor Alexander Dvorkin, Greek Orthodox Publications, Video-tape "Synaxis or gathering of the Heads of all Orthodox Churches at Fanar, Constantinople, ].</ref>

Andries 09:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm speaking of another paper, presented at the London FAIR conference. It doesn't seem to be on the web, or it is not indexed by Google.

The DCI paper is also interesting, of course - it shows that she (and James Richardson) will testify about anything, when asked to. --Tilman 13:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But was that paper published in a reputable source? If so where? Andries 13:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't know.

If we need only a source that she is controversial, we could use the articles about losing the INFORM funding, and the criticism by Sackville. I thought I had posted the source list here ?????? It was originally posted by Monica Pignotti to the usenet. While the usenet isn't a source itself, the sources mentioned are. --Tilman 13:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I do believe reputable sources state that she was attacked by Tom Sackville, but that should be stated as such, without free interpretations of sources. Andries 13:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I found it: . It is identical to "Cults in our midst", pp. 217 - 218, notes on p. 352. I could scan / photograph the pages if needed.

If I understand you correctly - you think that the word "controversial" is OR, unless a specific source uses that word? --Tilman 14:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, yes, if sources for example state (preferably mulitiple sources) "the controversial sociologist Eileen Barker", or "Eileen Barker who, as so often, drew heavy criticism" then I support including the word controversial in the lead. For a comparison, the word controversial in the lead of the article Sathya Sai Baba is sourced. I do not think that free interpretations of sources (which I made myself too in the past) are okay. Andries 14:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this subject is on my list of self-admitted Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interests. Andries 14:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh. Now see what I'm just doing :-) --Tilman 14:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dvorkin + Singer

I'll put back the segment with Dvorkin. BabyDweezil claims that this isn't criticism at all. (Funny, because for me, it looks that Dvorkin is saying in a very polite way that she is seriously wrong). BabyDweezil didn't modify the text, or put it in the non-criticism section - so this is clearly an attempt to simply remove something.

I'll revert the change that shortened the "cult in our midst" segment. First, per WP:NPOV, it is important to tell Barkers side of the story - even Singer/Lalich did so, in fairness, and so should we (although I can imagine that he excuse is not very credible). Second, it is important that the words "procult apologist" are mentioned: in the past, different people claimed that all sort of critics of cult apologists didn't use such words. --Tilman 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh, I see it has already been done. As usual, I am of course willing to compromise with the style to make it more NPOV if other editors think so. But please, be constructive, not destructive. --Tilman 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement from Dvorkin can hardly be considered serious "criticism", and its inclusion is just an attempt to throw anything that sounds vaguely negative into the article. In any case, the Dvorkin quote isnt a reliable source. The Singer description of Barker's explanation of her funding is third hand and not acceptable as an account of Barker's explanation. find a reliable source where Barker explains her rationale for accepting funding. BabyDweezil 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is Dvorkin not a reliable source? It was published in Update/Spirituality in East and West. And why is a third hand account of Barker's response not acceptable if properly attributed? Andries 21:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Andries--Can you say what that publication is? In any case, the quote hardly amount to "criticism" of Barker, just a vague comment on a statement she made. And Singer's account of Barker is third hand, and she cites no source in what is an inflammatory ad homenein attack on Barker, likening her to a Nazi scientist! BabyDweezil 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Spirituality in East and West nr. 11 1998". I think this is the successor of Update magazine that was described a scholarly magazine by David G. Bromley. Andries 21:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dvorkin is Professor, and if I remember correctly, he has two PhDs. Spirituality in East and West is a reliable source, it is a respected magazine from the Danish Dialog Center.

The Barker funding excuse is also mentioned by a reliable source, Singers book. She gives the source: Religious News Service, 10.7.1989. --Tilman 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

BD, Instead of just deleting what you don't like - why not do some research and add more positive information about her? --Tilman 21:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How in the world is this "criticism?"

Dvorkin says ""an unusual response from persons claiming to be experts in the field of NRMs." I'm sorry, to include such an off the cuff opinion (by a guy who serves as a propaganda minister for the Russian Orthodox Church and has been cited as fomenting religious unrest in Russia by human rights groups) as constituting "criticism" worthy of an encyclopedia entry is just too much of a stretch. If you guys just want to bash Barker, come up with some reliable serious discussions of her work. BabyDweezil 21:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil, you are using inflammatory language here. Plus, the guy who you claimed "serves as a propaganda minister" was sued with similar arguments as yours, and won in court. --Tilman 22:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic and explain how the Dvorkin quote can be considered "criticism" worthy of an encyclopedia article. BabyDweezil 22:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The remark "an unusual response from persons claiming to be experts in the field of NRMs" clearly is criticism. It is also worthy of an encyclopedia article because Dvorkin used very careful words. The word "unusual" is clearly an euphemism. --Tilman 22:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you have to offer such an extensive interpretation of his words and explain that he is using "euphemisms" proves my point that this is not encylopedia-worthy "criticism". BabyDweezil 23:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So, how should the "criticism" look like to get the "BabyDweezil seal of approval"? --Tilman 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles