Talk:Eileen Barker

Untitled

I believe that there could be different wording used instead of the word 'unsuccessful' twice when talking about her political career. It also appears that the 16th citation no longer is an existing link. Otherwise this appears to be a very well written page. Thank you for contributing your information! Rosburn (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2017 (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. Peer reviewers: Rosburn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello,

it would be helpful to the reader to know more about her approach and conclusions, as she describes it in Barker, Eileen "The Scientific Study of Religion? You Must Be Joking!" Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34 (1995), pp. 287-310. There she describes the position of the sociologist, the concepts of scientific research of these movements, the position of a scientist within a field of differing viewpoints which are not or much less scientifically based, how she made this researched information available to the public etc. I think this artcle should present more on her viewpoint, and then can have "controversial viewpoints of other personalities". Then I suggest to make a difference between a "controversial" person and a specific opinion or scientific interpretation which can be controversely dicussed. English is not my first language and I do not know enough about your editing procedure due to time constraints, but I like to read wikipedia and appreciate your work! Thank you so much for your efforts!

Kind regards!

Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.54.87 (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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 [Unification Church] 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. [1]

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)

I guess she likes traveling to the States. By the way, how about merging her book and bio? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (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: [2]. 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">[http://www.dci.dk/?artikel=647 A Presentation on the Situation in Russia], Professor Alexander Dvorkin, Greek Orthodox Publications, Video-tape "Synaxis or gathering of the Heads of all Orthodox Churches at Fanar, Constantinople, [[1992]].</ref>

Andries 09:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm speaking of another paper, presented at the London FAIR conference. [3] 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: [4]. 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 Wikipedia: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. [5]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)

Criticism in this context would doing a serious analysis and consideration of the viewpoint of a fellow scholar (even though Dvorkin does not have a scholarly record) and if you disagree, you discuss why those views fall short. The Dvorkin quote does none of that, its somewhere in between a sound bite ("an unusual response") and an Ad hominem attack (calling scholars "persons claiming to be experts"). Then it would get not only my seal of approval, but more importantly, that of the academic community as a whole. BabyDweezil 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, it doesn't do own research. It quotes facts, research and statements from reliable sources. A source doesn't get "unreliable" just because it expresses criticism. --Tilman 06:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, this snippet from Dvorkin is NOT criticism, it a half sentence personal attack on a scholar. OPen an RfC if you want to put it in. BabyDweezil 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So, you invest 10 seconds to delete something relevant, from a reliable academic source, but that you don't like, and expect others to invest an hour, maybe even more to "beg" you to put it back in? That isn't the way it works. --Tilman 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the way it works is that editors who put in quotes such as the Dvorkin one give a sensible explanation as to why its relevant, notable, important, reliably sourced, etc. (I spend a good deal of time tracking and verifying sources here) Focusing on that might be more fruitful than your incessant personal attacks on me. BabyDweezil 18:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticizing your modus operandi here is not a personal attack.

If you spent time on verifying the sources, then you know that the Dvorkin statement is well sourced, and that Dvorkin is not just an expert, but an academic expert. --Tilman 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it back in. It has been in since July 2006 with no protest; only recently, it was mentioned (by Andries) that the text didn't properly characterize the content of the source given, so I corrected it with a more verbatim description. --Tilman 08:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it was there since July 2006 is hardly a justification for it being correct. George Bush has been in the White House since January 2001, but obviously thats a mistake :) But seriously, folks. The "quote" by the fringe church activist (and bigot) Dvorkin is a non-scholarly personal attack on a scholar, not "criticism." Find something by her colleagues that is an actual criticism of her work, not just some cheap propaganda by a hostile "activist." BabyDweezil 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't get non-scholarly just because you call Professor Dvorkin a "bigot", which is inflammatory, "alarmist", and an insult. The truth is that Professor Dvorkin, as a scholar himself, has phrased his criticism in a very moderate language, letting the reader decide. Eileen Barker has claimed that one can be a member of multiple cults at the same time. Even CESNUR calls this a "legal fiction", [6] though failing to mention the "theory" of Barker and Richardson. Dvorkin could have said "she's nuts", "she's lying", or "bullshit". Instead, he chose to call this "unusual".

The fact that it was there since July 2006 shows that for 7 months, nobody thought that this statement would be problematic. Andries noted that the text "that she is controversial" wasn't matched by the source, so I corrected this by removing any interpretation and sticking to the actual "polite, careful" language. --Tilman 17:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It was accepted by the court, so Dvorkin's criticism is really of the court. Dvorkin calling someone else's testimony "unusual" does not amount to notable "criticism" of a scholar. Find a source where Dvorkin or anyone else examines Barker's views and subjects them to criticism, not a single word ("unusual") orinted in a Church journal commenting on testimony in a court case. And again the "its been here since July 2006" explanation really shows nothing, so there's no need to keep stating it. There is no statute of limitations for editing inaccurate material on Wikipedia.

Also, could you direct me to Dvorkin's scholarly record? That would clear up the discussion of whether he actually is a scholar. I can't find anything, other than that he is an anti-NRM propagandist for the Orthodox Church. BabyDweezil 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your "argument" is just saying that my argument is nothing. This is beginning to sound like the Monty Python argument clinic. Its also not you who are making the rules ("not a single word ("unusual") orinted in a Church journal commenting on testimony in a court case"). It has already been stated elsewhere that this "church journal" is a reputable source.

The cult apologist link provided do mention publications by him. --Tilman 17:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We need a source to prove that Professor Dvorkin is a scholar??? Tanaats 21:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I will repeat my own mantra which is that "No matter how many times you repeat the "scholar" mantra it won't work." Tanaats 21:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am asking for a source showing that he is a "Professor Dvorkin" and a scholar. The website of the university where he is a professor? A bibliography of his scholarly articles? "Professors" generally have these things readily available, and it wouldnt be the first time inaccurate academic standing or other misinformation appeared on Wikipedia. Dvorkin already has had his credibilty questioned by a Moscow attorney and has been cited by a human rights group for raising the level of religious intolerance in Russia. Can't be too careful these days! BabyDweezil 21:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As you might know, this "attorney" was the opposing attorney in the court case. HRWF is an obscure organisation. Finally, enter Professor Dvorkin in a search engine. --Tilman 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have searched him. Most results indicate he is an anti-cult activist in Russia, in each reference he seems to be listed as affiliated with a different organization, all of them related to the Orthodox Church. Nothing indicating the university where he is a professor or a bibliography of his scholarly articles. searching "Professor Dvorkin" just turns up blogs and the like, no reliable sources indicating where he is a professor. Am I missing something? BabyDweezil 22:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So you're setting up new conditions for your private rules ("may not be affiliated with the Orthodox Church" - and you're suggesting that the guy is a fake. --Tilman 22:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, these are not my "private rules," providing corroboration and documentation for claims is a concept that dates back a few thousands years, and is also in widespread use on Wikipedia. If putting "may not be affiliated with the Orthodox Church" is supposed to be a quote from me, a look above shows I clearly didn't say that, so please read other editors comments carefully before attributing quotes to them. In any case, this could be easily cleared up if someone could supply a reliable source indicating the university where Dvorkin is a professor and/or a bibliography of his scholarly articles. Thanks again. BabyDweezil 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ban

• See multiple warnings and finally text ban by administrator on BabyDweezil's talk page. User in question has been banned from removing material from article mainpages, unless consensus is first achieved on talk page for said activity. The issue of inappropriate commentary in edit summaries was also brought into question. Smee 19:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Smee, the Talk Page is for discussion about improving the article, not for incessant denigrations and snide comments about users you disagree with. Your posting of the same comment on multiple pages is creepy stalking behavior. Also, please refer to WP:NPA for further guidance on relating to fellow editors. BabyDweezil 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is in no way a personal attack. I am merely informing others of the situation at hand, in very plain and factual language. Smee 20:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

  BD, the fact that an administrator feels herself pushed to such an action, after you have ignored several warnings from her about your edit warring, is indeed relevant for the Talk page on all of the articles that you edit on. Since your multiple bad edits have negatively affected all such articles, other editors deserve to be aware of what is going on. Tanaats 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

alright, I'm not going to ask you again--if you continue to discuss me on Talk Pages, including lies about me "ignoring several warnings", I will have to file the standard complaints about you, which I usually hesitate to do.BabyDweezil 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You must do what you must do. If I am advised that I am acting inappropriately in any way then I shall be happy to correct my behavior. Tanaats 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

For a respected scholar as Barker, this article is unbalanced, as the criticism section is as large as the rest of the text. The article needs to present other material about Barker, such as her work at INFORM and more about her views. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record - I don't mind this at all. I always appreciate when the reader can get both sides of a controversy. --Tilman 06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been working on adding more positive and neutral info to the article. I will go ahead and take off the unbalanced tag. Steve Dufour 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eileen Barker. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014065725/http://www.fathom.com/feature/121938/ to http://www.fathom.com/feature/121938/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)