Talk:Keith Raniere/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Keith Raniere. |
m Substing templates: {{unsigned2}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info. |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== The "NXIVM Nine" == |
== The "NXIVM Nine" == |
||
<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Chrisrus|Chrisrus]] ([[User talk:Chrisrus|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chrisrus|contribs]]) 04:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
{{unsigned2| 04:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)| Chrisrus }} |
|||
===Sources on the Nine=== |
===Sources on the Nine=== |
||
[http://web.timesunion.com/pdf/NXIVM9AllegedExtortionLetter.pdf | http://web.timesunion.com/pdf/NXIVM9AllegedExtortionLetter.pdf] |
[http://web.timesunion.com/pdf/NXIVM9AllegedExtortionLetter.pdf | http://web.timesunion.com/pdf/NXIVM9AllegedExtortionLetter.pdf] |
||
Revision as of 12:39, 20 February 2015
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Keith Raniere. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The "NXIVM Nine"
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 04:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Sources on the Nine
| http://web.timesunion.com/pdf/NXIVM9AllegedExtortionLetter.pdf
Identity of the Nine
- Barbara Bouchey
- Ellen Gibson
- Nina Cowell
- Jan Heim
- Sheila Cote
- Kathy Ethier
- Susan Dones
- Kim Woolhouse
- Angela Ucci
Forbes Article Comments
If you look at the following article that is listed above: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0724/044a.html It is interesting to note that it actually calls NXIVM a "an executive training firm", in the text of the article, it does not list it as a "cult" itself. The title itself was actually part of a follow-through investigation of the 2003 article, so it had to bear the same name, but the text of the follow-through did not explicitly state that NXIVM was a "cult". Is there any objection to its removal from the list above? U21980 (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- So basically what I am saying is, the 2003 original article can be included in the list which claims that NXIVM is a "cult" but the 2006 follow-through should not. U21980 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- What's the title of the 2006 follow-up? Chrisrus (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- The title of the article is Follow-Up: The Bronfmans and the Cult (referring to the title of the 2003 article). My point is, if the 2003 article had been named The Bronfmans and NXIVM, then the title for this article would have reflected that instead. So the 2006 article by that standard, does not actually refer to NXIVM as being a "cult" itself. U21980 (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- An article titled "The Bronfmans and the Cult" doesn't refer to NXIVM as a cult? That's just wrong.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- A follow-up article that simply restates the title of the 2003 article but does not label NXIVM as a cult does not actually count. Now the 2003 article, that is a different story of course. U21980 (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- An article titled "The Bronfmans and the Cult" doesn't refer to NXIVM as a cult? That's just wrong.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- The title of the article is Follow-Up: The Bronfmans and the Cult (referring to the title of the 2003 article). My point is, if the 2003 article had been named The Bronfmans and NXIVM, then the title for this article would have reflected that instead. So the 2006 article by that standard, does not actually refer to NXIVM as being a "cult" itself. U21980 (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- What's the title of the 2006 follow-up? Chrisrus (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)