Jump to content

Talk:The Family International

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.66.4.79 (talk) at 19:49, 27 October 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

I love wikipedia

this discussion page and article is so typical of wiki bull, ooh lets be oh so careful not to call a spade a spade because god forbid you offend anyone even if they are creepy kid touchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.225.231 (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more and more I read discussion pages in wiki, or watch edit fights between clearly incompetent or uneducated editors, or see the blatant attempts to whitewash disgusting behaviors such as child sexual abuse, the more and more convinced I become that wikipedia is useless as a tool for anything. The opening paragraph of COG's wiki page is proof positive. It's a cult. Pure and simple. It's not described by some as a cult, it's a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagathor (talk • contribs) 12:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the 9/11 articles. Woop woop. Mr.troughton (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to ask. WHY has the Davidito book been completely left out of this article or censored from it? It's a massively important piece of information regarding this organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.30.228 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DARN good question. It should at least have a cursory mention here, with a link to the separate article that exists on Davidito himself. His murder/suicide probably needs mentioning too. I mean, come on! It's a major and well covered bit that COG/The Family published that book with some rather graphic pictures of adults engaging Davidito in what many would consider sexual abuse (including one photo of him copulating orally with his female caregiver, at age 2 or 3 i think? Which is in most of the world would be considered CP) Snertking (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone should read"

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


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

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

The publication "Sex, Slander, and Salvation"

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

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

Actually I think it could be reasonably justifed as having its own article as it was notable and relitavley controversial book. I would remind you though thowald that allegations on talk pages still qualify as BLP violations. Thorwald have you actually read the book? I have. its not screaming CULT CULT and is critical quite explicitly at times. Though there are some sections where the methodology is questionable or clearly avoiding thorny issues it is still cited often as RS in acedemic publications on the Family. Nor should we use primary sources that you were suggesting to make allegations that had not been cited by a reliable secondary source to make such allegations for us.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Sex, Slander, and Salvation created and has a WP:DKY creditThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't believe we should have sites belonging to current or former members at all. That's not what the external links section is for. Some of the sites are defunct, some contain documents reproduced in violation of TFI's copyrights. I also question the inclusion of xFamily sites. What makes those sites reliable? They contain many unverifiable anonymous reports. They also host documents in violation of copyright. In general, we don't list self-published "anti" sites unless there is sufficient editorial control, etc. per WP:EL.
For now I am removing the current and ex-member sites. Wikipedia is not a web directory, these sites are self-published, and they just don't meet WP:EL. Yworo (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


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

Sexual Abuse

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

which also had some fallout here: http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/miss-indonesia-subject-of-legal-battle/347306 I just don't feel like I've got a grasp on it all yet. Anyone more knowledgeable about this issue?69.245.72.101 (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly disturrbing, a young man on a rampage claiming sexual abuse at hands of the Family int. http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_dca170e9-0c0c-50f8-991b-a5f5d0f696f8.html 69.245.72.101 (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)edit, this one's already in there actually. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. That was Ricky Rodriguez aka: Davidito, the adopted son of Berg, the founder of COG/The Family.Snertking (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

xFamily.org

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

If Hollywoodbob123 really did find "viruses" on xFamily.org, he should report that to them (rather than "spamcops") as they are actually in a position to fix the problem (if there is one). If "Hollywoodbob123" believes that "copy-write protected" material is being "illegally used," he should also report that in specific detail to someone who can actually do something about it rather than making vague statements in a revision comment.
However, I suspect Hollywoodbob123's defamatory statements about xFamily.org are not based on fact but simply on his personal and professional animosity towards the existence of xFamily.org which in only a few years became the largest primary source archive of information, documents (including thousands of pages of legal records), images, video and audio related to Children of God/The Family. The wiki part of it is rarely updated and some its content could be fairly described as "dated" but that is not a sufficient reason to exclude an external source. Manicmoe (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This is a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Note also that it appears Hollywoodbob123 and Samantha1rouge (both of them newly registered) are in fact the same person (i.e., same IP address) and that violates Wikipedia's rules; especially with respect to WP:EDITWAR. This is actually grounds for being banned on Wikipedia. --Thorwald (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cult vs. New religious movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Would all of you new editors, if you are different people, please follow WP:TALK in terms of indentation.)
"Cult" is a perfectly respectable term for this organization; it's what most reliable sources call it. Britannica is not a reliable source for our purposes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Family International/Archive 1#"widely referred to as a cult" for the previous discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

You will probably be blocked if you change it back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Britannica is a reliable tertiary source; but we have 142 reliable secondary sources which call this organization a "cult". We prefer secondary sources to tertiary sources, especially for opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cult is indeed the appropriate word to be used. Especially given the historical context, since the existence of Children of God/The Family directly gave rise to what is widely considered to be the first "anti-cult" activist group. Snertking (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, i'd even go one step further and propose the text be changed to "destructive cult" with citations to the many WP:RS sources that use the term describing them. They certainly would meet at least one of the definitions given in the destructive cult article.Snertking (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
on second thought, better yet, as WP:BLP issues apply here, how about something along the lines of: "is a New religious movement characterized by reliable news sources as being a Destructive cult"Snertking (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Given the evidence, I also Support moving this to Cult and not as a new religious movement (which is not consistent with what TFI seems to be). FULBERT (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How long before we can close the rfc? There was consensus in 2012 and it looks like there still is, since nobody is contesting. 143.176.56.102 (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is going to need a pretty drastic rewrite

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

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

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

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

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

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

Educational tv series

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

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

"Spirit helpers"

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

Outdated

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, The Family is the correct name for this group, and IMO this should be moved to The Family International, but there is an existing redirect, so a sysop will have to move it over the redirect. generic_hipster 16:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We should consistently use the official names of religious groups. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also support this. The name of the organization includes the word "The" and so we should as well. Does anybody oppose this? FULBERT (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, NPOV, etc.

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

cult in the lead, NPOV, wp policies

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

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

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

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

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

A source needs to be as strong as the claim made; since you say TFI is "for sure" a cult this seems like an obvious classification, so doesn't require super strength sourcing. No need to be coy about it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? You want the (strong) claim "cult" in the article and hence you need to provide a proper source for it and so far you haven't (as explained above).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was my own POV. To me, it's obviously a cult, but to others it may not be. Why not use "new religious movement" instead? Much less biased. And as much as I like to read the sources you're referring to, (I love to research NRMs and probably could tell you loads and loads about them) they obviously have a bias. Using new religious movement instead of cult is much more NPOV. 79.66.4.79 (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these imaginary people who don't think it's a cult? It fits the definition of cult like a glove, and is obviously so. If you want stronger sourcing start here[1] maybe, but don't water-down reality. That (in fact) is what NPOV demands. Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Members don't think it's a cult, for one example. I am sure there are non-members who don't think it's a cult, but suspect they're not numberous. In any case, there are people who don't think it's a cult. NRM is much more neutral, in my view. Apologies if I'm bothering you, simply don't agree that using cult in the first sentence is NPOV. (Hope you're having a nice day by the way) 79.66.4.79 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Family_International&oldid=807412613"