Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:18, 9 May 2007

An entry from Governmental lists of cults and sects appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 10 March 2007, here.

Archives

March 2007 -

If this article becomes too big...

• If this article becomes too big because we find sources for more and more governments reports with lists of cults, we can eventually model it after List of drugs. Smee 07:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Name

To continue the discussion started by Really Spooky, this article should be renamed to something like Groups that have been referred to as cults in non-governmental sources that illustrates that some of the reports are not current. Sfacets 07:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He was referring to the other article, not this one. That is why that part of the discussion should be taken back to that article's talk page, Talk:List of groups referred to as cults. Smee 07:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Hmmm good point :) Ok then, this article should be renamed Groups that have been referred to as cults in governmental sources or similar... (sometimes I just read too fast). Sfacets 07:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• How is that any different than the current name of the article? Mind you I took the name practically verbatim from its subsection heading under the previous article, which was long-stable and had consensus. Smee 07:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Previous subsection heading under the article List of groups referred to as cults, was Groups referred to as cult in government reports. All that was changed was that "List of..." was added to the beginning. In fact, the reasoning why this was done in this way was precisely so it would have the most consensus from the prior stable version... Smee 08:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Well I question that - since it is a different matter if the time-frame within news sources is ambiguous, and another when dealing with Government reports there is a degree more at stake in regards to the reputation of these groups, and we should deal with them with a degree of extra caution in regards to neutrality and any eventual prejudice that could be caused by inadequately describing the place the groups hold within the various countries. Sfacets 08:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Even more reason why the title of the article should be "reports", and not "governmental sources". Put another way, an official "report", as representative of the research of that particular government as a whole, is relatively unambiguous, and can be attributed to a particular government, in a particular year. However, "governmental sources", could refer to anything, for instance a single Senator/Congressman's statements, etc. Smee 08:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Alright, I don't have so much of a qualm about using "reports", however something should be included that indicates the discontinuity of the application of Governement reports in regards to these groups such as "List of groups that have been referred to as cults in government reports"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfacets (talk • contribs) 08:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

That is a long and rather unwieldy approach. The word "referred" is already in the past-tense, and I have set up the article with subsections and subheadings within the subsections, specifically to denote the year of the report(s). Hope that helps as to the intention of the setup of the article. Smee 08:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Sfacets, Gatorgalen is promoting LOGRTAC English-tense title rhetoric reform that is essentially De minimus. Which not to say that his point isn't correct, but that codes of law and systems of rules don't, can't, and/or shouldn't provide a remedy for such small degrees of unfairness, due to the other Whac-A-Mole problems such attempts would cause. Recognizing this limit is essential to being a good rulecrafter and designer of human systems.

I'm not saying there's no way to make a further diminishing-returns improvement, but lengthening an already unwieldy title is probably not the way to do it. Milo 12:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Okay then, this is good, it seems we are all coming to a consensus on the established title - which had already been in place as a stable subsection heading for quite some time. Smee 14:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

POV - section

Not sure without looking at it more if this is a POV fork but certainly Smee cherry-picked that 1979 US report. Look at all recent State Dept reports on Human Rights abuse in Germany to see that Scientology, for ex., is a minority religion, not a cult --Justanother 15:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• PLEASE STOP all of the violations of Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks. Comment on content, not contributors. The title of this article is: "List of groups referred to as cults in government reports". That is exactly the nature of material included. This subsection was long in existence and stable at List of groups referred to as cults. The only main reason for the move was because it was getting to large over there, nothing more, nothing less. Smee 15:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • PLEASE STOP all these phony-baloney accusations of PA. There ain't any PA's. It is all your posturing. --Justanother 15:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're both right, but both of you could have handled this tiff better. Smee, behavior is commentable and not a PA. Justanother, unless you have reasonable evidence of Smee's state of mind (courts do admit such evidence) then you need to reword your complaint to focus on the the objectional behavior. In this case, 'That 1979 US report appears to have been cherry-picked' or 'I think {or in my opinion; or I suggest} that 1979 US report was cherry-picked' followed by the evidence you presented which was ok. Now, I wasn't clearly persuaded of cherry picking by your evidence, but that's a debate issue. Smee's stated defense seems reasonable, but I haven't researched it either. If you really want to persuade other editors, find and present the clickable diffs to back your claim. On the other hand, this is so trivial that Smee should probably have said 'I didn't do that, please AGF. Followed by the defense evidence he presented which was also ok.
I respectfully suggest that you both go back and re-edit your own posts to present your cases better, or at least remove the bolded shouting. Strikeouts are appropriate for changing mistaken facts and changed voting positions. Delete and replace with thread-change disclosure is appropriate for making inflammatory remarks invisible. If you choose to do this — to maintain thread continuity — at the end of your re-edited post and following the existing signature, write "Re-edited {'to remove unintended incivility'", or whatever seems politically appropriate including nothing but 'Re-edited' if you decide not to apologize.} ~~~~~" The five tildes just insert the date. You can add more than one re-edit date if necessary.
I hope this helps. Milo 19:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, IMHO the answer to your concern is precisely to add context to the 1979 report to which you refer by putting in information about the US Government's current position. Whatever the motives may appear to be to you, you can hardly fault Smee for putting information into Misplaced Pages that is indisputably factually accurate and well-sourced. That can only be a good thing. -- Really Spooky 11:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Listing groups referred to as cults in government reports, in this article.

• Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports - Is there a POV problem with listing groups referred to as cults in government reports, in the article: List of groups referred to as cults in government reports? Smee 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Previously involved editors

• Please see discussion above. This information was long stable with consensus as a subsection under the article List of groups referred to as cults. The material was then split here because the subsection was getting too long. It is historically relevant, and in-line with the article, to list groups referred to as cults in government reports, in the article List of groups referred to as cults in government reports Smee 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
• You cannot present cherry-pick a single 27-year old report, that appears to me to have been "cherry-picked, and present simply that without a valid challenge of neutrality. Scientology is a recognized religion in the US, not a "cult" and I can fill the page with government reports that support that and that would be the majority view and should have the majority of space in the article. Here are 238 hits from one US agency. Wanna guess How many call Scientology a "cult" vs how many call it a "religion"? Add "cult" to the search and see. It is an educational exercise. --Justanother 15:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Re-edited to make a more value-neutral statement of fact 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be a very good citation for the article List of groups referred to as religions in government reports, but not List of groups referred to as cults in government reports. Smee 15:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
    • And that is why this article is likely a POV fork. --Justanother 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It was not POV when it was a long-stable/consensus subsection at List of groups referred to as cults, and it is not POV here. Merely reporting the historical facts as attributed and cited appropriately. Smee 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
        • If that article is being used to forward unbalanced propaganda then it needs some serious looking at too, and I thank you for alerting me to these. --Justanother 15:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Let us stop the back and forth and allow uninvolved RFC commentary below to take place. Thanks. Smee 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • OK. --Justanother 15:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Talkabout's Option #3 - If a user wishes to create an article List of groups referred to as religions in government reports, and then link here from there, I would have no objection. However merging the two would be extremely unwieldy and create a host of problems. Smee 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC). Smee 16:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Slow down, please. Let's see what others have to say. If this present article is going to exist to solely promote one minority POV then I do not believe that it will stand review. A better apporach is needed. --Justanother 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Let us hear from more editors coming from the RFC venue. Smee 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

• "Referred" implies that the groups are currently still on reports maintained by governments, and does not specify any timeframe. Something needs to be added so that it is clear hat a)The governments in question may no longer be listing the group (or any groups) and b)That the reports may be several years old, and that no new ones have been produced since with lists of groups consider as "cults". The title is misleading at the moment.Sfacets 02:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, the title was virtually verbatim from the subsection heading at List of groups referred to as cults, which had been stable by consensus for a long time. And the word "referred" is past tense. This specifically means that all mentions refer to historical reports. This is why the year is noted in the subsection heading for each report as well... Smee 03:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Well it's ambiguous, isn't it? - It could be taken to mean "are referred" or "were referred" - in any case, misleading. By prefixing something like "have been" the meaning is cleared. Sfacets 03:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Denoting the date of the report itself takes care of that one. You will note that I added were cited in past government reports , to the intro... Smee 03:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes, that is a fair point, however the title does lend a lot in the interpretation of the article - since it is the first thing a visitor reads, everything he/she reads after is "tainted" (for lack of a better word) by this. Perhaps we could add the year(s) that the reports were issued next to the countries in which they were produced? (eg. Belgium (1997), (2005) ) to even things out? Sfacets 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The year is already listed in the sub-subsection, below the countries. There will be additions of multiple years/reports under each country, where groups are referred to as cults, so it does not make sense to put the year one step higher up. Smee 03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
• My two pence:

(1) I see nothing POV inherent in the concept of this article in principle, it reports on a notable topic, particularly in the context of the 'cults' series (which I would prefer to call 'cult controversy', but that is another issue).

(2) I fail to see any point in making a list of groups referred to as 'religions' in government reports, I doubt that is a noteworthy topic deserving creation of an entirely new article. I am however open to persuasion on this point.

(3) Any POV concerns about the selective presentation of content in this article can easily be addressed by reasonably adding new content that provides the context. I don't think we need to be in the business of censorship.

(4) As for the title itself, I think there is some validity to the argument that it uses weasel words creating an initial impression that it contains the current position of governments. But one has to actually read the page to see the groups that are listed, and the argument that the title somehow brainwashes people into disregarding what the article actually says seems frankly a bit anti-cultist to me (no offence, only pun intended) :). In sum, I think it is a matter that could merit further discussion, but it should not be an obstacle to the continued existence and further population of this page.

Wait, that's 4 pence. Or 4 half-pence worth 2 pence (in 1979 denominations) -- Really Spooky 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Previously uninvolved editors

I don't see a problem in listing the groups if that is in the countries published reports as it is merely stating a fact. How about a compromise:

• 1. 1List of groups referred to as religions in government reports One can list those there.
  2. 2List of groups referred to as cults in government reports One can list those there.
• Option #3 merge the two and but keep the separate categories (may be too long though) or have a heading with a link to the opposite article. So, in the List of groups referred to as religions in government reports there would be a link to List of groups referred to as cults in government reports so that the information would simply be that information.PEACETalkAbout 15:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the debate I see above. Firstly, since Having been to Talk:List of groups referred to as cults I realize that I have nothing to say, and that the editors of that page must be relied upon to manage this page as well (this I do not see currently outside of a couple). It seems that if you do not like the content of the page, there is very little that will ever be done about it. I am not sure how I like these pages. On that talk page I am at once convinced by both sides and neither. I suggest those who are new to the page leave it to those who have been here for its life.—Red Baron 19:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(Response to Red Baron by previously involved editor) "I am at once convinced by both sides and neither." Well, you sound like a centrist editor that is needed in the cult topics. There are more things that can be changed than are obvious on the surface, but it involves learning a lot of Misplaced Pages guides, topic debate history, and for achieving proposals consensus, memorizing which editors hold which POVs.

Despite the similar topic, List of groups referred to as cults in government reports (LOGRTACIGR) must be managed differently than List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC). The principal reason is that LOGRTAC has a set of consensed listing rules, and so far, LOGRTACIGR does not. For example, Rosicrucians currently listed at LOGRTACIGR are not listable at LOGRTAC because they were founded before 1920 (LOGRTAC rule #4).

LOGRTAC rules resulted from years of debates and compromises following frequent edit and talk page attacks, including four AfDs. Government reports are by their official nature more immune to attacks due to anti-reporting POVs, but the current selective presentation of them without consensed presentation rules will surely result in new article attacks on LOGRTACIGR. Milo 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotation from source regarding Austria

Smeelgova,where in the article does it mention the list? Can't seem to find it. Sfacets 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for asking here on the talk page for clarification. Here is the necessary info:
• U.S. Department of State Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 2006 - Austria

The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government were small organizations with fewer than 100 members. Among the larger groups was the Church of Scientology, with between 5,000 and 6,000 members, and the Unification Church, with approximately 700 adherents throughout the country. Other groups found in the country included Divine Light Mission, Eckankar, Hare Krishna, the Holosophic community, the Osho movement, Sahaja Yoga, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, the Center for Experimental Society Formation, Fiat Lux, Universal Life, and The Family.

Smee 03:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

But that's not the reference you are using to reference the list claim, that source mentions nothing about a list. Sfacets 04:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that other citation was originally added actually by User:Jossi - and I cannot understand that particular language. Smee 04:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

The source mentions nothing about a list being maintained (I could be wrong - can someone confirm?) if so it serves no purpose, and another source will have to be found. Does the U.S. report mention specifically that Austria had created a list? Sfacets 04:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government - this means that these groups were termed "sects" by the Austrian government. As to the other citation, I don't know. Smee 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, but it doesn't specify if this was mentioned in a government report (see article title). Sfacets 04:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not mention which government report, but in order for the State Dept. report to refer to the fact that the Austrian government had termed certain groups as "sects", this must have been the case. At any rate, I am fine with the "commenting out" manner in which you have compromised on this in the article main space. Thanks for being amiable in the discussion by the way, your polite mannerisms and lack of personal attacks are most appreciated. Yours, Smee 04:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

That is speculative at best, but I am willing to wait for other views on this - and amiable is my middle name ;) (no, not really, that would be weird) Sfacets 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am fine if you are with the way you left it now, with that reference "commented out", for the time being at least... Smee 07:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

That is fine with me as well at the moment, however for the sentence (and the section?) to stay another reference will have to be provided showing that there is a report about groups referred to as cults in Austria. Sfacets 07:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I believe it was User:Jossi who had added this bit it would be interesting to hear his take before anything is removed. Additional citations are always good... Smee 07:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Congressional Research Service (1979) > U.S. (Mainly)_U.S._(Mainly)-2007-03-11T12:51:00.000Z">

Living Waters was included in this list of links, but it linked to Living Waters Publications, the ministry of Ray Comfort, and the sister ministry of Way of the Master with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. The Living Waters referred to in this 1979 list was probably the group that later developed into the Branch Davidians. Ray Comfort and his Living Waters Publications did not move to the United States until 1989.Oboya 12:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)_U.S._(Mainly)"> _U.S._(Mainly)">

In that case, remove the link but not the name (already fixed). Jim_Lockhart 13:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Congressional Research Service (1979)

Does not seem to be a "government report", but a study from a researcher. I cannot find any information on this reporter, who commissioned the study, etc. Unless that information is forthcoming, that section may to be removed from this list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Information on the researcher is provided on Wikisource. The Congressional Research Service is a service for the United States Congress, and the document is a matter of government record and thus in the public domain and a government-produced report. Smee 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

No, Smee. That is not a "government report". It is a study by an researcher. You can use that6 source in the Cults and governments article, but not here. I am placing the appropriate tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No Jossi, it is a Government Document, located in the Government Documents section of the library. It is published by the "Congressional Research Service", a division of the United States Congress. Just because it was written by a single researcher, does not mean it is not a "government report", which it most certainly is. Smee 15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

No, no and no. This is factually inaccurate and extremely misleading.

(a) It is not a report

(b) It was not "published" by the CRS. It was printed by them.

(c) Thousands studies are conducted by researchers, but these doi not carry the imprimatur of a "government report"

(d) You are violating WP:V (factual inaccuracy) and WP:NOR (making this a "government report") when it is not

Please re-consider. You may have had good intentions with your work on this, but this study is most definitively not a government t report. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• From the Main Web site, for the Congressional Research Service: What is the Congressional Research service "The Congressional Research Service is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress." -- Notice it did not say, "..the public policy research arm of Charles H. Whittier.", but rather, of the United States Congress... Smee 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

And this:

See : The Congressional Research Service is where Members of Congress turn for the nonpartisan research, analysis, and information they need to make informed decisions on behalf of the American people. CRS employs a highly educated professional staff who are hired, retained, and promoted on the basis of merit and accomplishment. We welcome and encourage minorities, women, and persons with disabilities to apply. Clearly not people that create "government reports" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Congressman go to the CRS to ask for specific studies. These studies are not "government reports". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Example, published by United States Government

- CRS Annotated Constitution -- "The content of the CRS Annotated Constitution was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) at the Library of Congress, and published electronically in plaintext and PDF by the Government Printing Office." Smee 15:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

• Thus, it is a report, and published by an agency of the United States Federal Government. Fits most perfectly. Smee 15:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

No, absolutely not. Just read this, would you? http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html#about. The material they produce are not government reports. They are studies asked by Congressman and not "government reports". Did you find out who' asked that study to be performed? name of congress,man that asked for it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Who requested it is irrelevant. The President, Congressmen, and Senators all can request reports, and once published by individual Federal government agencies, become reports of the government. It is a "report", and I have established above that is is most certainly published by the United States Federal Government. It is thus a report of the United States Government. Smee 16:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Please do not delete the tags I have placed. Replace the tags, otherwise I am not engaging with you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your usage of duplicate tags is unnecessary and is undue weight/pushing an issue. Choose one location for your back-to-back tags please. Smee 16:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Request for Comment -- Congressional Research Service

• Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports -- Does a report by the Congressional Research Service, published by the Government Printing Office fit the classification of "Government report"? 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Previously involved editors

Comment by Smee

The report in question is: Whittier, Charles H., The Cultic Phenomena: New and Emerging Religious Movements in America, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Report No. 79-24 GOV., January 24, 1979. As per the government Web site, What is the Congressional Research Service, the very first sentence states: "The Congressional Research Service is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress." Therefore, the Congressional Research Service is an official branch of the United States Congress. According to CRS Annotated Constitution, "The content of the CRS Annotated Constitution was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) at the Library of Congress, and published electronically in plaintext and PDF by the Government Printing Office." Therefore, the reports are published by the Government Printing Office, and thus are reports published by the United States Federal Government, in the public domain, and fit the term "Government reports". Smee 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

1. Do you deny that it was published by the United States Federal Government?
2. And yet there is also the undeniable language: "legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress", and "public policy research arm of the United States Congress". Sounds like government report classification to me... Smee 16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
3. Referred to as "report" - - "Provides access to Congressional Research Service Reports that are in the public domain."
4. Listed under "Other Sources of Federal Government Information" -
5. Not all of the reports are placed in the public domain, but many, many are. Smee 16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
6. Simple searches will show this, for example: Government Documents on the Web, here, listed under "Government Documents" (Lists 222 reports in the public domain).

Summarizing

1. The Congressional Research Service produces reports as requested by Congress.
2. These reports are then published by the Government Printing Office.
3. Many, thought not all, of these reports are placed into the public domain.
4. These are thus "reports" published by the "government", and are reports of the United States Federal Government.

Smee 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

• Thank you, Anynobody, you seem to have succinctly and correctly summarized the key issue at hand here in an easy-to-understand manner. Smee 04:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Comment by Jossi

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis. In fiscal year 2003, CRS had a budget of $86,386,812 funded mostly by taxpayer dollars.1 CRS reports are not made directly available to members of the public. Instead, the public must request individual reports from their Senators and Representatives in Congress, or purchase them from private vendors such as Penny Hill Press.2 A limited number of reports have been made freely available on the web by federal agencies, Members of Congress, educational institutions, and nongovernmental organizations. (from Congressional Research Service).

These reports are not placed in the public domain as Smee argues. The OpenCRS a non-related entity, requires that a member of the public makes a request for the document and send it to OpenCRS so that these can be available to others. See OpenCRS website: American taxpayers spend over $100 million a year to fund the Congressional Research Service, a "think tank" that provides reports to members of Congress on a variety of topics relevant to current political events. (My highlight)

The Congressional Research Service is where Members of Congress turn for the nonpartisan research, analysis, and information they need to make informed decisions on behalf of the American people.

Also note that the CRS, is part of the Library of Congress. They produce a tonne of material each year, but these cannot be called "government reports". See

Summarizing

1. the CRS, as a think thank, does not produce government reports, but studies requested by a member of Congress on a confidential basis. They serviced 906,445 requests in 2005, of which 2,287 were "custom writings" according to their annual report.
2. These reports do not carry the imprimatur of a "government report" as expected in this article. This is highly misleading, and factually inaccurate.
3. These reports are for the government (in this case the US Congress) and not of the government.
4. The material for that report could be used on other related articles, but not on one that is dedicated to government reports.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding User:Anynobody's comment: All what he wrote is correct, with the exception of "since the reports are by/for the Legislative branch of the United States federal government". The correct statement is, by ALL evidence provided that these are private reports for the legislative branch and not by the legislative branch. Subtle, but essential distinction. Court documents presented at Supreme Court rulings are not government reports. Reports prepared for the FBI are not government reports. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Justanother

Sorry if I go off topic but this is a weird article. The article is inherently POV with "anti-cultists" using it to smear groups with a very broad brush. The only standard for inclusion here and painting some group as a cult is that it was ever named that ANYWHERE in ANY report by ANY government? Ridiculous. So the "anti-cultists" get to cherry-pick 25-year-old reports that name groups as cults while ignoring more recent reports from the self-same government that name the self-same group as a religion or as an NRM. What a crock. Sorry for the bluntness but this article is pretty blunt soapboxing which Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT. --Justanother 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

More on-point comment by Justanother

As someone that has some personal involvement with government reports let me make the point that a report commissioned by a government is not a government report unless the report is republished and made available as a government publication by the government. If a report commissioned by the government is not republished and made available by the commissioning government then it is not a "government report", it is simply the report of the contractor that prepared it. I can expand on that but that is the basic idea. The fact that the contractor's report is available as a matter of public record does not make it a "government report" either. The report must be republished under the imprint of the commissioning government. Did I make my point clearly? --Justanother 14:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Even more on-point comment by Justanother

The document in question seems to be an internal report prepared for the government by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Unless republished for distribution outside the government it does not have the strength nor RS status of a "government report" for the purposes of this article. --Justanother 16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

Comment from Lsi john

The CSR, from their own website, is a private research office, used by Congress for analysys. The CSR is not tasked with producing, publishing or releasing official government reports. Their work is printed, for distribution to Congress, not as Official Government Reports.

"CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis"

Their function is to provide a private and confidential and unbiased analysys to Congress. There is no evidence that they are charged with producing official government findings or official government reports. Their work would more accurately be classified as private internal memos to Congress.

Being printed by an arm of the US Government, and having a US Government document number, might make it a US Government Document, but certainly not an official US Government Report.

I agree with Jossi, that the material produced by the CSR, having been the work product of experts, could be used under the rules of WP:RS but not under the classification of an Official Government Report.

Summarizing

1. The CSR is a private research arm for the US Congress. It is not tasked with producing official Government Reports.
2. In the absence of specific wording in their charter, or specific wording in a document they produce, which declares the document to be an Official Governemt Report, and without appropriate seals and embossings which accompany Official Government Reports, we must conclude that the work product of the CSR is not Official Government Reports.
3. The reference material meets the standard for WP:RS, but does not pass the test for Government Reports.

Lsi john 19:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Anynobody

Hello everyone, I realize this is a confusing issue so to be clear I must briefly summarize the United States federal government.

It consists of three branches;

• Legislative (aka Congress) divided into the

• House of Representatives

and

• Senate

• Judicial
• Executive

CRS as everyone seems to understand, prepares reports for Congress as part of the Library of Congress. Since the reports are by/for the Legislative branch of the United States federal government, they are government reports. Documents by/for/from the Supreme Court are also government reports but are more often called court documents. Reports by/for/from the FBI, a division of the Executive branch, are also government reports.

Summary

CRS is part of the Library of Congress. The LOC is an agency of Congress, which is part of the government

The point is the the word "government" applies to any report from/for any of the three branches of government. openCRS looks like a private group trying to publish CRS reports it receives from the public who have in turn gotten them from their congressional representative(s).

Anynobody 04:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the word "government" might apply to any report/document/memo/phonecall by any of the three branches. But that was not the question. The question was does the word "report" always apply to anything printed by any of them, and more specifically by the private research arms of any of them? For me, I think not. Reports are official findings, printed, signed, sealed (read: imprimatur ) and then released as a report.

The CSR is a private research arm of Congress. Congress can use the information from the CSR and release a Congressional Government Report. But the research provided by the CSR is not a government-report in and of itself. Lsi john 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer to Lsi john

If it is funded by taxes, as it says, it can not be private. By your logic you are saying the NSA is a private research arm of the Department of Defense, or that JPL is a private research division of NASA. There is no such thing as "private" in the US government. Anynobody 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems

I see what could be a very serious problem with this article/list. (well one of several).

The opening sentence (which should identfiy/specify/contain/state the article's primary focus):

"Since 1978, some governments have compiled lists of groups that they have termed either cults, doomsday cults, or sects - in order to focus study on those groups within their respective countries."

From a reader's perspective, anything listed in this group, cannot simply be from any government report that mentions something as a cult, but must come from a report specifically about cults and specifically about targeting a cult for observation or study.

Based on that wording, if any incidental mention citations are used for including a group in this list, they would be in violation of the inclusion criteria. This would very likely seriously mislead the reader into believing that a group was specifically targeted for study when it wasn't.

Another issue is that this list is POV. Yes yes it uses WP:RS material. But the list itself is potentially POV. Unless there is a strict standard applied to define cult, then it an opinion which gets an organization on this list. Given that, there would need to be an opportunity for opposing views. However, the very nature and definition of the list excludes the possibility for opposing views.

A list of facts cannot be disputed and so a case could be made for List of former Presidents of the United States. A man either was or was not a President of the USA. There is no opposing view.

A list of opinions seems to beg for the opportunity to present opposing views in order to offer a neutral article to the readers.

Lsi john 23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) You say This would very likely seriously mislead the reader into believing that a group was specifically targeted for study when it wasn't.. That is indeed worrisome and in violation of WP content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparing a group to a man seems like a good way to look at the situation, until one realizes that groups and men can have very different lifespans and traits. A group that was a terrorist organization can become legitimate (if you don't believe me read up on the history of Israel from 1900-1948, or see Fatah) because as it's leadership changes people expect it's behavior will too. Individuals on the other hand don't have this benefit when changing their ways because their past is all one has to predict their future behavior.

I don't know much about football (either US or global meanings) but this principle is the same for players and teams, I've never heard football fans compare Emmit Smith to the Denver Broncos. This is an apples and apple trees comparison. Anynobody 07:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not follow your argument. Who is speaking of people? Nevertheless, our content policies apply to people, events, things, groups and anything in between. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john said':A man either was or was not a President of the USA. We are talking about groups referred to a cults. Anynobody 08:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In context, I was saying that a list of presidents is a list of factual entries. This article/list is not a list of factual entries but rather a factual list of cited references. That is a very significant distinction. The implication from the first paragraph is that this list is a list of cults that are being watched by the government. That implies that the groups are cults, and yet there is nothing in the article criteria that requires them to be cults, only that they be referred to as cults.

And, more significantly, my point was, there is nothing in the requirements which require that the groups were listed for the specific intention to be watched, which is what is implied in the first paragraph.

"Since 1978, some governments have compiled lists of groups that they have termed either cults, doomsday cults, or sects - in order to focus study on those groups within their respective countries. Groups listed below were cited in past government reports from Austria, Belgium, Canada, France(in 1995), Germany, and the United States."

Lsi john 15:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, John. That is an excellent example of original research. This is a "list" and the lead should be simply stating the criteria for inclusion, and nothing more. Something along the lines of This lists include groups that have been referred to as cults in official government reports. Nothing more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, would this also include the supplemental verbiage around each report? This is a list of groups, not a list of reports. Certainly citing the reports would be in order, but it would seem that describing the reports is not appropriate in a list. It seems that those reports should be in their own articles. Lsi john 16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that some neutral statements about the commission that prepared the report, date, country, etc. would be useful to readers; and if there is a main article on that specific report, wikilink to it, of course using the {{Main}} template. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this an example of neutral statements about ... a report?

"In May 2005 the then Prime Minister of France, in a circulaire (which stressed that the government must exercise vigilance in continuing the fight against the cult-phenomenon), said that the list of movements attached to the Parliamentary Report of 1995 had become less pertinent, based on the observation that many small groups had formed: scattered, more mobile, and less-easily identifiable, and that labeling the groups as "sects" went against the respect for public freedoms and Laïcité (separation of Church and State). The Prime Minister asked his civil servants to update a number of ministerial instructions issued by previous commissions, to apply criteria set in consultation with the Interministerial Commission for Monitoring and Combating Cultic Deviances (MIVILUDES), and to avoid falling back on lists of groups for the identification of cultic deviances."

It seems more to be a general citation of history, than addressing a specific report.Lsi john 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This also appears to be commentary on history, not brief neutral statement about a report:

"According to the report, the mass murder/suicide of members of the Peoples Temple group at Jonestown in 1978 awoke the United States government to the need to study cults and new religious movements. The report stated that the "tragic events in Guyana" had "focused attention on the larger phenomenon of religious cults in American life" - their nature, extent, and significance."

Lsi john 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It can be just re-written to stay close to the source and not interpret the source. In any case, that report is disputed as being a "government report". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a "government report"

We cannot call a report written by a researcher employed by the LOC a "Government report", because simply it is not. Such report represents the opinion of the researcher and not of the government, and it will be highly misleading to our readers, as it is incompatible with the title of this article. On the other hand the report "S. Rpt. 109-322 – Hurricane Katrina" by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, headed by Congresswoman Susan M. Collins, Maine, signed by Ted Stevens, Alaska; Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut; Norm Coleman, Minnesota and tens more, is a goverment report.

Any official report of the Government will be placed on the public domain, will have the seal of the specific branch of government that issued the report, and will be signed by government officials. People can an find such reports in communication arms such as the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), the USC United States Code, the Congressional Record, and others. A study by a researcher employed by the LOC is a private report for a member of Congress (and only available if you ask the Congressman to have a copy), and is not a government report.

As said in previous comments, this material may be used in other related articles as it is a verifiable source, but cannot be used in this article for the reasons expressed.

So, what we have here is a mistake, I assume made in good faith. This is not an issue of editors' opinion, but a fact. I am placing an {{expert}} tag to attract an expert on the subject that may explain this better than me.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are mistaken as to the nature of what counts as "government" property. (When I say property I mean reports, papers, documents, photos, ANYTHING created by or for the US federal government.)

• ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) says that a report written by a researcher employed by the Library of Congress is not government property because "...simply it is not." He further says Such report represents the opinion of the researcher and not of the government....

This is inaccurate because when a government employee writes something for his/her job (even if it is their opinion on something) it becomes property of the US government.

• This does not mean the report is the end of the subject at hand, there may be conflicting governmental reports on the subject, but because they all came from (or were written for) government employees they are government reports.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) as a sysop I assume you understand that pictures taken in the course of a government employee's job are automatically public domain, the principle is the same for non or de-classified materials.

It's very simple: If it comes from the government, it's a government publication. CAIB Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Even if it's found on a non-government site, as long as it was released by the governemnt it is still a gov't document: PDB August 2001 Bin Ladin Determined To Strike US, Presidential Daily Briefing. Anynobody 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what a straw man argument is? You are asserting an argument that I have not made. Of course that the document in question is the property of the Government. That is not disputed. What is disputed is to describe this document as a "Government report" by means on including it in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about public domain, you are mistaken in this specific case. Reports created by the CRS are not placed in the public domain for the simple reason that these are private reports. They only get to see the light of day, when a citizen asks his/her Congressman for a copy. As with all material created by a Government agency that is not classified, these dosuments can be placed in the public domain (as openCRS does). You may need to do some research into this, so you may understand the issue better. You can start here: Congressional_Research_Service that says (my highlight) CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I've misunderstood what you think a "government document" is and isn't,

Is

Prepared by or for the government, (the Defense Intelligence Agency creates confidential reports for the President of the United States are you saying their reports are not "government" reports?)

Is not

The absolute truth, they are subject to error like anything else.

I noticed English is not your first language, so is it possible this is a language breakdown? Anynobody 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) We are discussingthis specific case: A report written by a Charles H. Whittier, an employee of the Library of Congress. That "report" is not a "government report". It is a document written for a Congressman/Congresswoman, for their information so that they can do their jobs as legislators. Calling it a "government report" in the context of this article, and alongside official reports from governmental commissions of the governments of France, Austria and Belgium, if factually inaccurate and misleading ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

English is not my first language, but I have been fluent in English since the late eighties. I am also fluent in Spanish and Hebrew, and can have a colloquial conversation in Italian and French. Language is not the issue here, understanding is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, you seem to equate "private" with "classified", they are not the same thing. A private company is one that uses funds from investors or customers to operate. A classified document/report whatever is a product of the US government which for security reasons is not available to the general public at this time. Anynobody 06:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, slight of hand by changing the wording isn't going to fly. Government Report is a very specific term with a very specific meaning. We are not talking about Government Documents we are talking about Government Reports, and my primary language is English.

While some of the following may apply to a Government Report, the term is not interchangable with the following:

1. government document
2. public domain
3. generic reports that happened to somehow pass near the government
4. government property
5. documents printed by a government facility

A "Government Report" is a "Government Document".. BUT a "Government Document" is not necessarily a "Government Report". You continue to start with valid, but unrelated, statements and then switch terminology mid-stream and arrive at a false and unsupported conclusion. Lsi john 23:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john it's not slight of hand, lol I'm too clumsy both with words and in real life to pull anything like that off. I think you and ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) think if something comes from the government it reflects the opinion of the entire US government which is inaccurate, see my post below for more. Anynobody 06:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

IS a "government report"

Discussion has moved to bottom

• I think this DIFF at the article Congressional Research Service by User:Fred Bauder is very telling:

Copyright status and availability

As products of the Federal government reports prepared by the Congressional Research Service are in the public domain. While they cannot be accessed directly by the public through the internet many reports have nevertheless been posted on the internet through the cooperation of members of Congress. Open CRS serves as a portal to posted reports.

Notice the language used: "reports", and "products of the Federal government", and "in the public domain" (just because they are not freely available on-line, does not mean that for copyright purposes they are not in the public domain... Smee 06:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you, Smee :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) this is what I have been saying all along, it isn't a straw man argument the issue is ownership. Government publications of any kind are definitely WP:RS but that doesn't guarantee they are right OR the view of the entire government. Like I've been saying, the us government has three heads and three voices (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial). Anynobody 06:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that that particular DIFF and blockquote information from User:Fred Bauder is from July 2, 2005, and is thus wholly independent of this discussion. Thus, reports from the Congressional Research Service article have stated to the reader as such that they are "reports", and "products of the Federal Government", and "public domain", since that time, and the article has remained in effect and VERY stable during that time period... Smee 06:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Straw man? No one is disputing that the report was written by the CRS and that is a "report". What is being disputed is to place that report, which is not an official report of the US Government, alongside reports from official government commissions in other countries. This is not only disingenuous, but factually inaccurate and misleading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You two are using "Government Reports" in a very casual way and interchanging it with "government documents". Anobody said it himself "John I'm too clumsy with words", when he was explaining why he wasn't intentionally using slight of hand with words. But the fact is, that is exactly what you are both doing, whether intentionally or unintentionally. You are showing that Government Documents are Public Domain, which is true, and then you switch over to the wording Government Reports, which are not the same thing. Please refer to my explanation above.

The term "Government Reports" is a proper noun. It identifies something very specific and very official. It identifes a report which was produced by the government and for the express purpose of releasing an opinion of the government. A Government Report will be clearly identified as such by its imprintaur of the US Government.

The single word report can be interchanged with the single word document but Government Report is a linked two word combination which has a specific meaning. You cannot separate those two words at-will and replace them with other terms.

If you want to make your argument, find sources which use the specific wording "Government Report".

Or change the title of the article to government documents. Lsi john 12:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Mmmm... Your last sentence above is interesting, John, and has the potential to extricate us from this quagmire. If we frame the dispute around the title of the article, all the content in the article can remain and we could all walk away happy and focus our energies on other articles that need our attention. I propose to rename this article as List of groups referred to as cults in government documents, keep all the content and remove the dispute tags. Smee? Anynobody? Justanother? What say you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Provided a very clear disclaimer is added, which states that "The documents used do NOT necessarily reflect the views of the governments and are not necessarily published on behalf of the governments."

Given all the confusion about what a Government Report is and is not, it needs to be very clear that government documents do not necessarily contain the opinion of any government. I am concerned that this list was intended to be used to imply that governments had sanctioned the entries listed here. While government documents would satisfy the requirements and the current debate, it will raise another one (from me in particular) about the misleading nature of the title.

If Smee and Anynobody were confused about what a Government Report is and is not, then it is equally likely that people will assume 'government documents' imply decisions or opinions of a government. They both have been saying that government documents are Government Reports. Based on this, it is reasonable to assume other readers will also make this mistake.

Remember the original wording on the fist paragraph?

"Since 1978, some governments have compiled lists of groups that they have termed either cults, doomsday cults, or sects - in order to focus study on those groups within their respective countries. Groups listed below were cited in past government reports from Austria, Belgium, Canada, France(in 1995), Germany, and the United States."

This wording indicates that the governments have sanctioned these documents/reports. While I agree that this wording was improper in the article... it does go to establish what the article was supposed to represent. "Official government opinion"... which would not necessarily be accurate in insignificant "government documents".

Wiki has a responsibility to be un-ambiguous.

Under the title government documents, technically any email from any government employee, could be classified as a government document and thus be used to identify cults. This would be very misleading, when used next to an Official Government Report which carries the weight and opinion of a government.

Lsi john 15:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I may have thought of how we can settle this, could anyone who says CRS reports are not government reports please give an example of a report (doesn't have to be about this subject just what you think of when you think of a government report; the Kennedy assassination, the mob, the moon landing, anything).

(Given that I have already researched and posted several links, I don't think this is an unreasonable request) Anynobody 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

When a "Government report" is written, it never speaks for all three branches of the federal government because no one agency represents all three branches. I'm not asking you to take my word for it, see for yourself:

U.S. Federal Government www.usa.gov

Agencies of Congress - including the Library of Congress which by default includes CRS since it's a division of said agency.

Federal Judicial Branch Organization the Federal Judicial Center does the same job for the Supreme Court as CRS does for Congress. The reason I ask for one of the opposition to point to what they consider a "government report" is because whatever the report they point to will be published by one of the three branches but not ALL three. Anynobody 04:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Here is one that just came out: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/pdffile/spd-annual-report_final_lowres_4-25-07.pdf And the point is? --Justanother 04:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for participating, the report you've cited is how the Executive branch of the US federal government sees it's Achievements in Ozone protection. The Environmental Protection Agency is a quasi-independent agency under the aforementioned branch of the government which like the CIA reports to the President of the United States.

google pdf viewer for those who don't want to mess with the .pdf file. Anynobody 05:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So? Civics lesson aside, the point is? --Justanother 05:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't speak for the Congress or Supreme court. (Remember that part of civics, included lessons about checks and balances which make sure one branch doesn't speak for the whole government). Anynobody 05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

While the civics lessons are getting a bit sophomoric, I still do not get why you are making this point. Did someone say that a gov't report "must speak for the entire gov't"? In the US system, most reports are issued by agencies under the control of the Executive Branch. The EPA report would have needed the approval of the EPA Administrator and would likely have been reviewed by White House staff and carries the tacit approval of the President. As far as Congress is concerned, let me show you what a real Congressional Report looks like - United States Congressional investigation of the Unification Church. While it may not be notable, it is a real "government report". The "report" we are discussing here is internal to the government and NOT released under the authority of the Congress; it is simply available to the public as a matter of public record. --Justanother 06:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother I honestly thought you'd be able to make the connection that if a report from a federal agency under the executive branch is a government report, why isn't the report in question: Whittier, Charles H., The Cultic Phenomena: New and Emerging Religious Movements in America, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Report No. 79-24 GOV., January 24, 1979.

1. It was created by an employee of the federal government, using government research, just like the EPA report only on a different subject obviously.
2. It's intended purpose is to report on cults, for the Congress (Back to civics, part of the us federal government)

Anynobody 06:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you also saw this in the above discussions:

-Smee *I think this DIFF at the article Congressional Research Service by User:Fred Bauder is very telling:

Copyright status and availability

As products of the Federal government reports prepared by the Congressional Research Service are in the public domain. While they cannot be accessed directly by the public through the internet many reports have nevertheless been posted on the internet through the cooperation of members of Congress. Open CRS serves as a portal to posted reports.

I believe Fred, what about you all? Anynobody 09:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Especially when we take into account that that comment was made way back in July 2005... Smee 09:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

You are misreading Fred's sentence: Allow me to clarify the grammar and syntax:

As products of the Federal Government, "reports" prepared by the CRS are public domain. They are not, however "Government Reports".

At this point, y'all either get it, or you don't. I'm inclined to suspect you're having sport and enjoying watching people dance around repeating themselves. Lsi john 23:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Chronological order

Information should be contained on the list in chronological order, thus, the French "circulaire" should be in its own subsection in the proper chronological place. Smee 01:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee, you have not looked above at the conversation already about this. Please participate before you revert. thanks. Lsi john 01:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no prior conversation about this particular issue. If so, please point me to it. Smee 01:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

It's in the section on Problems. And please have a look at WP:BRD regarding your revert and then post justification. Once you are reverted, it is your responsibility to discuss, not simply make a claim and re-revert. Thanks. Lsi john 01:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, in light of the discussion above, perhaps we should remove as much extraneous info as possible, and simply keep the purpose of this article to be a list format, with very short descriptive sections... Smee 01:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

• This, , was a very minor formatting edit, which was immediately reverted by User:Lsi john. Please, give it a chance and tell us what you don't like about it on the talk page. Smee 01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

It was reverted becasue it was clearly the first step in an attempt to circumvent being reverted. This is a list of groups, it is not a chronology of reports. This was discussed above at least indirectly. The tone of the conversation, which you are welcome to participate in, was that each report deserved a brief NPOV description. This is not a list of Government Reports (which could reasonably have a chronology), this is a list of groups. The reports are incidental and only relevant because they listed the groups. No significant information, or findings, from those reports should be listed here as that would not be in keeping with a WP:LIST and specifically not with the title of this list. Lsi john 02:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a list of groups referred to in government reports, and structured by Country first alphabetically and then by chronology within each subsection. This is logical and self-explanatory. Smee 02:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Having a long list first and only then the fact that the list is no longer used, is not acceptable for obvious reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the list itself should still have its own subheading. Smee 08:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Unsourced, commented out

"Subsequent French parliamentary commissions on cults reported on specific aspects of cult activity in 1999 and in 2006. "

• Does anyone know where to look for more information and citations on this interesting tidbit of info? Smee 08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

You could try google language tools to translate what you are looking for into/from French to English and search the appropriate language (google will auto-translate French to English in the results). Anynobody 09:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Red links

The number of red wikilinks in these lists makes them terrible eyesores and imply bad editing (when I am on an article or website with possibly more dead links than live ones I find it frustrating.) I'm willing to take them out (replaced with standard text, not talking about deliting items from the lists)but want to make sure nobody has done this on purpose for some reason I'm unaware of. Anynobody 09:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should leave the red links in place, this is standard practice and many if not most of these groups are notable enough and enough reputable secondary sourced citations can be found to create articles of their own on them at some point soon... Smee 09:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm not saying articles can not be made for them either, as they are created wikilinks can be added in place of the standard text. The red links are a bit of a tease. (Seriously, just scroll from the top of the page to the bottom to see the general aesthetic of the article.) The problem is I think we may be overlinking. I'm not advocating the removal of all red links, but there must be room to trim them down and balance the guidelines. Anynobody 09:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I could be agreeable to that. Certainly as they are created articles could be wikilinked, you are correct there... Smee 09:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Of the red links, which articles do you plan to write in the near future? I'll make the other red links into standard text. Anynobody 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly, I am not sure yet, haven't looked into which ones have the best potential for ease of finding reputable secondary sourced citations... Smee 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

It's not an emergency, we should wait for the below situation to be resolved before taking action anyway. (I just like planning ahead) Anynobody 21:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Either way, sounds good. Just more inspiration impetus to search for those reputable secondary sourced citations for which to create new articles... Smee 21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

This is simple - just look at their mission

Guys, if you read and understand the mission of CRS you will understand that you are misusing the report and that there is not any way that that report can represent the views of any branch of the US government:

"Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress." (emphasis added)

I can guarantee you that the Director, Mr. Daniel P. Mulhollan, would consider it unthinkable that you would suggest that his work "represents the views of Congress or the US government". It is implicit throughout their website and their annual report that they work for Congress and that their reports are for Congress. Their reports would have to be re-released as official Congressional Reports or incorporated into such to carry the weight of the government. --Justanother 23:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. This material should be excised from this article, or the article name changed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is simple, mission is irrelevant - FOIA is what matters

The intended audience is irrelevant, if it was written by a government agency it's a government publication

Defense Intelligence Agency writes reports for the DOD but also has to make info of a non-classified nature available to the public because of FOIA (remember Barbara Schwarz?) DIA foia info by your logic, since the DIA reports are for the DOD, they are not government reports. What would you call this: Small-Caliber Ammunition Identification Guide Volume 2 - 20mm To 40mm Cartridges. (PDF file size: 3.0 MB)

Government Accountability Office writes reports on government efficiany for Congress and various federal agencies, more about it:. Since the reports are for the government, again your logic dictates this to be something else:d07573.pdf - Food Stamp Program: Use of Alternative Methods to Apply for and Maintain Benefits Could Be Enhanced by Additional Evaluation and Information on Promising Practices GAO-07-573, May 3, 2007 Anynobody 01:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is a report written by someone in the government does not make it a Government Report. How many times does this need to be spelled out? Government Reports are a very special type/category of report, they are not plain old simple every day ordinary reports. Lsi john 01:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

AN, FOIA is irrelevant. In many government agencies, e-mails are a matter of public record and subject to FOIA. Does that make those e-mails representative of government opinion? That FOIA argument is specious so let's please not use it anymore. Your other argument is worthy of discussion. I looked at the ammo report and I say that, again, that is not a Government Report if by such, you mean a report that would be fully supported by the DoD and by extension, the President of the United States. You would be misusing the ammo report if you used it in that manner, just as you are misusing the cult report. --Justanother 01:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The ammo reference clearly states on the front page that it is a GUIDE. And, it is a document, by definition of the word document. It is not a Government Report. It is simply a document printed by the government which identifies itself as a GUIDE. It is a document printed by the Department of Defense, which makes it a Defense Department Document, but not a Government Report. Scan that Document and you will not find the word REPORT. You can go round an round with the word games forever, until you decide finally to read our replies. Lsi john

In accord with Anynobody's request for third opinions (good idea), I've formatted a couple of sections for both previously uninvolved WP:3O editors, as well as previously involved returning editors like myself. Milo

WP:3O Third opinions

In a 02:26, 7 May 2007 edit summary Anynobody wrote: I've asked for a WP:3O on the CRS issue
If you are a previously uninvolved editor please post here, otherwise post in the next section

Third opinions are only accepted if there are only two disputants. Your request has been rejected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It was, but that doesn't mean they aren't welcome though. Anynobody 04:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

First second opinions

If you are a previously involved returning editor please post here hmm... nice try at herding cats Milo 04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue really boils down to this

a report from the Congressional Research Service, an arm of the Library of Congress, itself an agency of Congress is a government report. Anynobody 03:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. A "Government Report" is a report that has the imprimatur of the government, by means of issuance by an official commission of such government. There are literally millions of documents prepared by contractors, internal think-tanks, and other governmental services such as the CRS (just read trhe abundant references above on the mission, aims and modus operandi of the CSR), and these cannot and should not be referred to as "Government reports", as it is misleading and factually inaccurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it boils down to ..

1. What is the specific and technical definition of a government report?
2. Who can write government reports?
3. What branches of government can write/issue government reports?
4. At what point does a general report become re-born into a Government Report?
5. Can a report be a government report without the signatures of the head(s) of the branch of government that it represents?
6. Is an agency authorized to write government reports on behalf of the branch of goverment under which it operates?
7. Is a member of a private research arm, of an agency, of a branch of the goverment authorized to write an official government report, on behalf of the branch for which it is doing private and confidencial research?

And I happen to agree with Jossi. Congressional reports are a special class of Government Reports. But CRS reports are neither Congressional Reports, nor Goverment Reports.

Lsi john 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john would you mind answering those questions, I've asked for your answers to them before to show me where I'm wrong. Anynobody 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, I have given you my opinion, numerous times. If you believe I am incorrect, all you have to do is show me a citation which clearly establishes it. Lsi john 03:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was editing LOGRTAC when the Government Reports section was named at LOGRTAC. It seemed so obvious that I didn't give this definitional issue a thought. I assumed that anything a government uttered in multiple copies, was a "report". Still, I can understand the need for distinguishing different kinds of government utterances.
I'm fond of using WP:AVOID in technical disputes. That way it's not necessary to do all the parsing suggested by Lsi john. If this is really just about precise language, it seems to me that a title rename/move to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents might inclusively resolve the dispute. Milo 04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can get behind that assertion, the source is the government which to me seems to be the important factor. Anynobody 04:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Milo, then scroll up to that part of the discussion. Government documents would include email and telephone notes. Hardly a good criteria for identifying cults for exorcizing. Lsi john 05:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Under the title government documents, technically any email from any government employee, could be classified as a government document" That doesn't sound rhetorically correct to me (except when a document is sent by email). I would call email, letters, memos, and notes "government messages", and part of a larger category along with documents (including reports and research) called "government communications".

Email, letters, memos, and notes are normally not fact-checked. Things that aren't fact-checked aren't reliable sources. Documents are usually some kind of research — "report" or not — so they are presumed fact-checked prior to distribution. I don't see a problem; am I missing something? Milo 07:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Milo, you just identified my problem with using 'government documents':

"I would call email, letters, memos, and notes "government messages", and part of a larger category along with documents (including reports and research) called "government communications" -Milo

If there is not a true, specific and concise definition for 'government document', then it doesn't matter what you and I would call email. We will have exactly the same challenge with 'government documents'.. exactly what is the definition of a 'government document'. If you can provide a citation which clearly defines the term, then I am willing to read the definition and consider it. Until then, its what you think it is versus what I think it is versus what Jossi and Anynobody think it is, and we'll have exactly the same debate about the next item to be included... Is this really a government document? .. Lets solve the problem now.. not just change the name to something else in order to get past this question and only put off the problem until later. Lsi john 17:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We closely cross-posted. See my 17:23, 7 May 2007 post below beginning with "imply that any". Using WP:AVOID, the issue of need for an exact definition for "government documents" goes away after addressing your real concern which is misusing unreliable primary sources. Milo 17:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's important to remember Lsi john, we're not talking about an e-mail or a note in this case. We can cross the "is an e-mail an official government document" bridge when/if we come to it. For now, lets just stick with reports. (Especially since the document itself and the government refer to it as a report) Anynobody 07:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's wise to think ahead to avoid having the list depopulated if someone finds a flaw in consensus reasoning. But unless I've missed something, email, letters, memos, and notes are not an issue. If so, that bridge doesn't need to be crossed. Milo 07:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, however in my discussions with Lsi john he has tried to imply that any communication is an official document even a theoretical e-mail between an employee and their friend about non government topics, if this report is one. Anynobody 07:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"imply that any communication is an official document even a theoretical e-mail" I've followed the news of many USA government scandals. Based on that news coverage, I would write that emails (and letters, memos, and notes) are usually internal government messages not intended for the public, and are therefore not fact-checked. However, they do become "government documents" when their status changes due to public disclosure via the USA Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or subpoena by courts or Congress. Even when these become "government documents" due to disclosure, they remain primary sources, since they have not been subject to fact-checking reliable secondary source analysis.

In Misplaced Pages, primary sources can only be used when someone without special knowledge can verify descriptive claims based on them.

For example, a hypothetical government email reads, 'Charles Authur of the Guardian thinks that Misplaced Pages is a cult more serious than a fancult, and I think that Misplaced Pages is a dangerous cult. Please investigate and create a formal congressional research document on the potential for Jimbo to become Jimbo Jones. Be aware that the research document could be released by members of Congress as an official government report.

Even if this email was turned into a "government document" by Congressional member release, as a primary source all that it would prove is that some government employee wanted Jimbo investigated. The assertion that 'Misplaced Pages is a dangerous cult' has not been reliably fact-checked, so I would not create a link to it in this LOGRTACIGR/LOGRTACIGD article, even though it is a government document. (But I might link to it in an article on investigating cults.)

On the other hand, if the requested investigation document concluded that 'Misplaced Pages is a cult overflowing with mind-controlled "Wikipeds" unquestioningly doing Master Jimbo's bidding', then I would link to that here in LOGRTACIGR/LOGRTACIGD as a fact-checked reliable source government document. Milo 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is not about calling these "government documents". It is about calling these "Government reports". The proposal still on the table is to move this article to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents, or better still Groups referred to as cults in government documents as some of the documents in this article doe not contain "lists". The proposal includes the need to assert that these are official documents, but that do not necessarily reflect a government's position, unless the document was published on a official report by an official governmental commission such as the France one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement. I'd like to hear from others, especially Will Beback, on the impact of dropping "List of" from the title. Milo 17:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think dropping the word "Lists" from the title makes sense. I totally agree with you Milo, if it came from the government (and is not classified) it's public info. I was trying to point out to Lsi john that e-mails and such need to be used with common sense:

I'm not saying that an e-mail from a federal employee describing his attire is a citeable government document on men's fashion: Mike Brown's fashion e-mail as Katrina was happening. A NASA technician e-mailing his boss because he is worried foam may have struck the underside of the Columbia during ascent, is definitely a reliable government source.

By my logic, a government employee e-mailing a friend and talking about cults is not something to be cited. An agency of the Legislature writing a report for said body on the topic of cults is something to be cited. (You should understand part of citation is including when this was said, I'm not trying to imply that this is still a report the Congress uses as things may have changed since 1979. Anynobody 08:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody 21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to dropping "List of" from the article name. My personal opoinion is that this should be merged back in to the List of groups referred to as cults which would make the issue moot, but no one asked me that. -Will Beback · † · 03:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to move article to Groups referred to as cults in government documents

Support

• I support moving the page to: Groups referred to as cults in government documents -- if this will end the current long long thread of discussion for the time being on this issue. Smee 17:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
  • If no one has any objections, I will move the article page myself. Smee 17:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC). COMMENT: -- In light of the discussion that has proceeded below, I think perhaps the current name of the article, List of groups referred to as cults in government reports, or perhaps more simply: Groups referred to as cults in government reports, is still appropriate. Especially since the title itself does not connotate anything other than reports produced by the Federal government. Smee 05:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
  • (you just beat me to it, Smee. I was about to make the same proposal.. Let's give a couple of days to editors to raise objections if there are any, otherwise make the move then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Smee 17:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
• I also like the idea stated by User:Jossi, above:

"The proposal includes the need to assert that these are official documents, but that do not necessarily reflect a government's position, unless the document was published on a official report by an official governmental commission such as the France one. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:30, 7 May 2007"

(Text from Jossi's proposal, in above subsection, with Diff provided.) Smee 17:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Oppose

• Propose name change to Groups referred to as cults in government e-mails. Better yet, Groups referred to as cults in a note stuck to a refrigerator in a government facility. And yes, I am using sarcasm to make a point. Please do not report me to WP:ANI. --Justanother 17:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I laughed, but pardon, what is your point? Milo 18:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Point being that now we want to use any government document that says "some have called XYZ a cult" to forward our Cult Fighter (cue music) POV-pushing agenda. Any document; unreleased documents, advisory documents, out-dated documents, discredited documents, refrigerator documents, letters to the degree that someone might consider the letter a "report", you name it. To the degree that this article has any validity at all it is about official reports released under government imprimatur. This point has been made before but needs to be made again here. And Smee, WP:POINT is about disruption and as you were told by an experienced admin; No, a sarcastic comment is not "disruption". --Justanother 18:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My analysis of this dispute was that it was superficially about definitions, but really about reliable sources. The refrigerator note is primary source, but not a reliable source.

There seem to be two basic kinds of fact-checked reliable sources, those which are formal government research such as CRS documents, and those documents which are accepted and released as official or policy at various departmental levels. In general, most official documents begin life as formal government research. Taking jossi's point about disclosure as to which are research documents, and which are released as official or policy documents would seem to address your concerns. Milo 19:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Then we may as well call the article Groups referred to as cults in reliable sources which we already have as List of groups referred to as cults. Because, as I said, if this article has any validity at all it is about official reports released under government imprimatur. So the proposed change, using your logic, seems to me to make this article redundant. --Justanother 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I supported creation of this article with a partial duplication at LOGRTAC because there are groups mentioned in government sources that predate 1920 and so can't be listed at LOGRTAC. I believed then, and subsequent events have demonstrated, that this article needs to evolve on a different path than LOGRTAC.

"official reports released under government imprimatur" Things change. I too might have originally assessed that, but facts in evidence are that formal government research, which is reliable but not neccessarily official or policy, is referrable within Misplaced Pages, and also needs to also be considered in covering the subject. Milo 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I am using sarcasm to make a point. -- Sigh, obvious WP:POINT. Oh well... Smee 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

However, when that sarcasm disrupts a Straw Poll debate, it can indeed be seen as disruption to make a point. Smee 18:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Only to you, Smee. Only to you. --Justanother 18:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that you have clarified your position, the sarcasm simply seems silly, but not a disruption per se. Smee 19:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

"Silly" I can live with. --Justanother 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidently Justan, evidently... Smee 19:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, look at who I have to live with here. Gotcha. Nanny nanny boo boo. And you started it (smile). --Justanother 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was you who did the starting of it. Or perhaps God, or maybe it was Xenu. Now there is some sarcasm for ya. Smee 19:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Now you are getting into the mood, Smee. Soon we will have you drinking with Wikipediatrix. --Justanother 19:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. Hehe, but I'm sure the cocoa is toasty down there in the Pyrenees. Smee 19:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Left. Please note that I did try to remove the above off-topic chatty thread but it was restored. Another is free to do so but please do not remove my original comment - that is how I chose to make my point. Thanks. --Justanother 20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Slightly less left. Please note that this thread above should remain, and will be archived in due time. Please also note User:Jossi's statement below that the original sarcastic comments by User:Justanother were a violation of WP:POINT and disruptive. Smee 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

• Opposed: (Per above). There is no specific definition for what a government document is and what it is not. By using the word government in the title, it carries the implication that the documents are official and carry a decision by or of or on behalf of a government. This would be very misleading, since any notes, memos, emails, faxes, or other correspondence between any two people, using government equipment, services or facilities, could be construed as a government document. If you wish to remove government from the title and simply say documents then I would agree. Lsi john 19:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked up "government document" on the web. The most inclusive reliable source definition is:

"Any publication issued at government expense or published under the authority of a governmental body. Included are official papers that record the actions or deliberations of government (such as the Congressional Record), informational publications (like the many statistical compilations of the Bureau of the Census), and reports of research done under government contract. -- (library staff at Clemson University)"

This definition would include both formal research documents and documents accepted as official or policy by government decision makers. Both are fact-checked Misplaced Pages reliable sources.

"notes, memos, emails, faxes, or other correspondence between any two people, using government equipment, services or facilities, could be construed as a government document." If subpoenaed, yes, but they could not be referred-to within Misplaced Pages except as an unreliable primary source. Why is this a problem for you? Milo 03:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not address Justanother's obvious WP:POINT. As for Lsi John's concern, I would argue that a proper notice on the article, explaining what is the common use of "government document" as different from "government report" could result in a factually accurate article. Please re-consider your objection in that light. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you can ignore my joke and address my point. And also do us the favor of not signing on to this silly idea that sarcastic comments to make a point are somehow disruptive and WP:POINT. And "proper notice" will not handle the fact that most will see "Government document" and feel that it is somehow official government policy, giving undue weight to something that is little more than one expert's opinion, or more likely, one non-expert's opinion of what the literature he read says. At best. --Justanother 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the same argument that you made above with regard to the word "report". Surely you must feel that some sort of connotation changes with use of the word "document" ? Smee 20:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Make a proposal, then, Justanother. We are in agreement that the current article name does not work, and we are trying to find an alternative that does not violate WP:V, so me need to move on and explore alternatives. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Delete for the reasons I gave in my first comment on the issue; it is cherry pie and inherently POV or 2) leave as-is but set out some guideline as to what is and is not a "government report" and handle it case-by-case. Other than delete there is no magic pill to fix this; just hard work. --Justanother 22:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support People focusing on the word "report" are missing the fact that this information comes from the government. What to call the information (report/study/opinion/whatever) is semantics. Those who think it doesn't qualify as a "government" release aren't making a very strong case for how they think such a report is created or released, this is a quote from a conversation I am having with Lsi john:

This is what I got from your answers: Government Report: any number of people can write them depending on who has been designated to do so within their branch of government, it becomes a government report when a decsion is made by whomever is designated to release the report by whatever agency is releasing the report under a banner of being an official government report. You may have typed a response, but you didn't answer my questions. Anynobody 21:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cover Page of Document shows it is a "Government report"

Nuff said??? Smee 03:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Not really... We have argued this quote throughly. the CSR is not the government and the "report" is a report for an unnamed Congressman/woman that requested it confidentially. It is not a "Government report" at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

" is not the government" ??? As I understand it, CRS staff are government employees, paid with U.S. Treasury payroll checks. If so, they are unquestionably part of the government. Milo 03:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, curiouser and curiouser. Then whey the label smack dab at the top that says: Report No. 79-24 GOV. Why else have that specific wording in there, if not to indicate that? Smee 03:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

(EC) No, the cover adds nothing to what we already know and has no effect on the arguments advanced. We already knew that it was a "report" and we already knew that CRS is a gov't agency. It is not a "Government Report" for the purposes of this section. Government reports are released to the public clearly as the position of the government. That clarity is the determining factor. This is an internal report. --Justanother 03:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• That does not answer the question posed above -- Namely, why the deliberate labeling of the government report as such: Report No. 79-24 GOV. What else would that indicate? Smee 03:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

That is the numbering scheme used by the CRS, and that does not make it "government report": The Congressional Research Service is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.. As you can see it is The CRS does not produces congressional reports, or government reports.. They produce research for members of Congress, or for congressional committees, which in turn may publish congressional reports (an this governmental reports) based on their research and the research of other private and public bodies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Do some research, Smee, and you will find that all government reports carry the seal of the branch of government that issue it, as well as carrying the names and signatures of elected members of the government, not just the name of a researcher. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, however this does not belie the fact that Report No. 79-24 GOV is used to identify this particular government report. I'm just sayin', is all... I am still not opposed to your move suggestion above... Smee 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

This is an example of a Congressional report (and hence a "government report") http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html - JOINT INQUIRY INTO INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES BEFORE AND AFTER THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

REPORT OF THE U.S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND U.S. HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

As you can see in the PDF, the numbering scheme used it does not use "gov". It is S Rept Np 107-351. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What all this demonstrates is that the definitions of "report" are more flexible than some editors have understood. Internal, external, whatever kind of report is a distraction. The real issue is the level of authority that a particular report carries; i.e, is it a report in the formal research stage, or is it a report that has been accepted by government decision makers as official or policy. Milo 03:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) I am glad we agree on something., Milo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Milo, you've hit it right on the head. For Jossi's example uses an abbreviated "Rept.", whereas the one to the right utilized the full word "Report", with ann abbreviated "GOV", in CAPS... Smee 03:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

That is not the issue, Smee. A report of the government is only such if it carries the imprimatur of the government, which that specific report doesn't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am still curious. Says who?? Where have you gleaned this info, show me your sources please. Without something to back up this statement, it is simply your opinion, and "Government report", simply means, "A report produced by a branch of the Federal government." Smee 03:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Could you please cite a report with the imprimatur you are referring to? Anynobody 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

See above. This one is: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And also, if the Federal United States government did not want to lend imprimatur to the government report, why label it as such? And why start off the first paragraph of the report with: "This report deals with the cultic phenomena surrounding new and emerging religious movements in America." Why would the Congressional Research Service refer to it as a "report" at all, and classify it as Report No. 79-24 GOV ??? If they did not want to give it imprimatur, why did they not simply call it a "research paper" or something of the like. We did not call it a government report, the Federal government did, in 1979... Smee 04:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

The sources are all there. I have explained this several times already. Now let me ask you a question: Do you really believe that the report by Whittier is a "government report" that represents the position of the Federal Government of the United States in 1979? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to retype what you say your answer is, you can copy and paste it here. (where's the imprimatur on the 9/11 Congressional report?)Anynobody 04:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the PDF report linked, and you will know what I mean. In any case, I have made my arguments as we have all done. There is no need to regurgitate these arguments again and again. Ther is a proposal on the table to rename the article, and if that proposal is not accepted, then we will need to seek mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that the report is a "government report", that represents the fact that it is a report produced by the Federal Government of the United States in 1979. But you still have not given me any citation or evidence stating that the term "government report" means imprimatur, as opposed to simply denoting a report produced by a branch of the federal government - except for your own opinion in the matter... Smee 04:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

You are describing my argument as a personal opinion, but note that the same I can say about yours. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are skirting my question. Do you really believe that the report by Whittier is a "government report" that represents the position of the Federal Government of the United States in 1979? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, it is you who are skirting my question. I don't care if it represents the postition of the Federal Government, that is not the issue here, it is a publication of the federal government. If you cannot cite a source that defines what is and is not imprimatur with regard to reports in this case, then why do we assume that is what the term "government report" connotates? It is you who is ascribing waaaay to much imprimatur to the term "government report" in the first place. It simply means, reports produced by the federal government. To say anything more is simply opinion, unless backed up by evidence. Smee 05:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

I believe a report from 1979 identifies part of the government's research into cults at that time. When you say represents the position of the federal government, you are saying this it what a government report represents:

There is no report that contains the view of the entire government. Anynobody 06:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We have made our arguments and no one is giving in even an inch, and it is pointless making the same the same arguments again and again. There is is a proposal on the table to rename this as Groups referred to as cults in government documents. Either we accept that compromise, or some one comes up with a better idea. Time to move on.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) all I'm saying is that no single report represents the entire US federal government's opinion on something. To create a report like that a process combining all three branches as illustrated in my diagram would need to be created.

The report you cited is the opinion of Congress. Since it's a part of the government such a report could be called a government report but is more accuratly called a Congressional report. Calling it a government report doesn't make it the "opinion" of the federal government, it simply makes it a report created by a part of the government. Anynobody 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Jossi, if and until you cite some sort of source that backs up your own personal opinion that "government reports" connotates the backing of all branches of the federal government, this statement is simply your own opinion, and the evidence put forth already only supports that these are reports produced by branches of the federal government. Smee 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

That is not my argument, Smee. My argument is the misleading title of this article as it pertains to its contents. If you cannot see that, then I have nothing more to discuss here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The end result is you have put forth no evidence to suggest that the term "government report", means anything other than a report produced by a federal agency of the government. Smee 23:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Absolutely no. See the comments by other editors, and the proposal to resolve this dispute. If you do not want to resolve the dispute by a compromise in changing the name of the article, please escalate the WP:DR to the next step. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete the dispute tags until a compromise is found and the material no longer disputed. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that government reports only come from the head of each federal branch? I'm also wondering if you'd mind explaining why the next statement about another government agency (this time under the Executive branch) is or is not what you'd call a bona fide government report?

• Preliminary Notification Reports from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission I would describe these as government reports about possible safety issues in nuclear power facilities. The reason I'd call it that is broken down here:
  1. government: originating from a federal agency
  2. report: written account of possible safety issues

I'm asking because this goes beyond the dispute here, it actually affects many other government reports used on other parts of Misplaced Pages. Anynobody 23:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

GAO and FBI reports?

For clarification, is the CRS report the only contested report listed under the US? Anynobody 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you offering some up which you find objectionable? Lsi john 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No I'm asking if the other two cited reports in the article are disputed too, you did read it right? Anynobody 00:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I just scanned and I don't see anything that indicated that anyone has tagged them as disputed. Were you wanting to dispute them? Lsi john 01:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nor did I, however since the validity of calling the CRS an agency designated to write government reports is being questioned it seems like a good idea to make sure another Legislative agency the GAO which prepares reports for Congress is accepted. (I honestly can't think of why anyone would question the validity of a FBI report, but there's a first time for everything) Anynobody 01:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well.. you're the one who brought it up. So you must have thought of it. That tells me that you have a concern about using them. I don't see anyone else as having challenged them. If you aren't questioning them, why bring it up? Personally, I let other editors come up with their own objections to things. I don't find that it is productive to dig around and find things for other people to object to. If you're happy with those items and have a concern about them, perhaps you should shhhh so nobody else notices that you think they're questionable. Lsi john 01:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem to have no problem with including the GAO report, what makes them different than the CRS besides the fact the GAO researches money expenditures as requested by Congress and CRS does the same for them regarding information? Anynobody 02:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)