Jump to content

Talk:Recovery from Cults

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

Notability

[edit]

I do not think that this is a notable book. VFD would be better or change it into a general article "Recovery from cults". Andries 06:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the fact alone that is such a widespread resource by authorities on the subject, plus the list of accredited contributors, makes it worthy of keeping. I'll probably say something similar on the AFD page. Yours, Smeelgova 14:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Well, may be, I cannot say that I particularly like the book, though I find it interesting. I do not want to do much work on this article and have my work removed by a successful afd. Andries 14:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. A very interesting tactic, create an article and then AFD it yourself to test notability... Smeelgova 14:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I do not think that my tactic is very much appreciated because it creates extra adminstrative work, but I think I have good reason to follow this tactic. I do not like to spent time for nothing. Andries 14:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vfd

[edit]

On 31 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Recovery from Cults for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 05:48, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Please Don't Move/Merge

[edit]

Having spent several hundred dollars looking for material on CULT RECOVERY I can honestly say this book is the best one, most academic, functional and practical. Please see the link[1] which will show you just how many credible individuals put in their expertise to make this book. There isn't another book out there with such a think tank that came together with the intent to help on a global level. Please see all the links in webpage so you can judge for yourself.

Your comments are most welcome.LogicUser 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

It's important to note that Wikipedia is not a book reviewer. It does not make value judgements about what certain books are good for, though it may report what other people have to say. I would expect to see such reports in the "Book Reviews" section, but I have no idea what the text that's there has to do with this book. -- Beland 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the missing context?

[edit]

user:Beland wrote that the following paragraph misses context and is hence incomprehensible. I cannot understand how anyone cannot understand it and what context should be provided. Please explain.

"Paul R. Martin Ph. D., the director of the only American recovery center for ex-cultists wrote in Chapter 10 Post-Cult Recovery: Assessment Rehabilitation, the following,
"In attempting to understand what has happened to the ex-cultist, it is often helpful to employ the victim, or trauma, model. According to this model, victimization and the resultant distress are due to the shattering of three basic assumptions held about the world and the self. These assumptions are: "the belief in personal invulnerability, the perception of the world as meaningful, and the perception of oneself as positive" (Janoff-Bulma, 1985, p. 15). The ex-cultist has been traumatized, deceived, conned, used and often emotionally, physically, sexually, and mentally abused while serving the group and/or the leader. Like other trauma victims (for example, of criminal acts, rape, and serious illness), former cultists often reexperience the painful memories of their group involvement. They also lose interest in the outside world, feel detached from society, and may show limited emotions (Janoff-Bulman, 1985, pp.16,17).""

Andries 09:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a quote from the book. Andries 13:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the only one to quote exactly this part of the book. The same quote was independently mentioned in the book edited by David G. Bromley Politics of religious apostasy. I think this was in the article by Stuart Wright. Andries 14:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think at this point the article would do fine with or without the quote, perhaps an external link or briefer reference to it would be okay, now that the overall syntax of the article has been cleaned up a little more. Smeelgova 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Yeah, I think it would be better if this book simply told us what the most important assertions of the book were. We need some context about whether the assertions presented in this quote are representative of the authors of the other chapters. Is this an edited volume of a bunch of different essays from a bunch of different authors? One reason for doing that instead of just writing your own book is that there is not one unified viewpoint on the subject. Is that the case here - i.e. do the authors of the various chapters disagree with each other? If not, what are the big points they agree on? -- Beland 14:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose to removing this quote. It is also referred to in post cult trauma. Andries 14:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, different essays by different contributors who all agree that cults are harmful. I think that a list of contributors and the corresponding chapters that they wrote is at least as important and takes far less time. Andries 14:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-submit this book for AFD

[edit]

I want to do more work on the article but I want to this only after I am sure that this article will not be deleted. Andries 14:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (amended for grammar)[reply]

The best way to keep something from being deleted is to turn it into a good NPOV article. I wouldn't worry about it being nominated for deletion again anytime soon, especially since you've noted here that you are working on improving the article. Just keep in mind that viewpoints of those who disagree with the book's contents should be reflected in the article. -- Beland 14:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Stuart Wright disagrees with the stance of the articles in the book, but the quote that he mentioned too corresponds nearly perfectly with my personal experience. Apart from that I do not know any negative reviews. Andries 14:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only want to do the work of turning it into a good NPOV article after I am sure that it survives AFD, so that is why I submitted the article again for AFD. Andries 14:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete! Turn it into an article about Recovery from Cults with a section for the BOOK

[edit]

Please don't delete this as it is too valuable to post cult members and those affected from contact with such cults/sects/NRMs. I say turn it into a Recovery from cults article if you must, but keep the information there. Thanks/PEACE TalkAbout 18:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TalkAbout, you can vote here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Recovery_from_Cults_(book) Andries 18:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I added this tag because of the following non-neutral phrases:

  • The lengthy quote that begines "Recovery from Cults is packed with current wisdom..." sounds like a review found on the dust jacket, not something you should see in an encyclopedia article.
  • "Recovery from Cults offers practical advice and case studies" - This sounds like Wikipedia is endorsing the advice of the book.
  • "The book is a useful refernce" - Wikipedia should definitely not be making value judgements.

If this article is going to get a major overhaul, these POV problems should be addressed. -- Beland 20:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good, will implement and see what it looks like. By the way, thanks for the input, and phrased in such a nice manner too. Yours, Smeelgova 20:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • I shortened the quote a little bit. But you know what, if we keep the rest of it the way it is, we can almost take out some of the 2nd intro paragraph below that, because it's kind of repeating stuff from the quote. Smeelgova 20:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • It's not just the "Recovery from Cults is packed with current wisdom..." part of the quote that sounds like dust jacket material, it's the whole thing. I would actually eliminate the entire quote and merge any interesting points into the next paragraph, then rephrase the paragraph to be neutral instead of promotional. -- Beland 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This particular quote is not a dust jacket piece. And if you look at other book articles which I used as a model for that piece, they usually have one succinct quote like that at the top to frame the page. Smeelgova 00:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Given the controversial aspect of this book, (i.e. the dispute about "cults", "brainwashing" and "mid control" as valid theories) we should either not add self-servig quotes, unless accompanied by other viewpoints. Otherwise this is advertising and not NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Model

[edit]

The intro says that the book is premised on the "mind control model" but the actual quote from the book talks about the "victim, or trauma, model". The claim in the intro is unreferenced, so perhaps it is mistaken, or the truth is more complex than the article's current explanation. -- Beland 20:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the authors treat it. User:Andries/Recovery_from_Cults_(book) Andries 20:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean to say that some of the authors talk about "mind control"? That doesn't really clear up my confusion. Perhaps the problem is merely one of phrasing. The mind control article discusses multiple models of mind control; the intro to this article implies that there is a single universally recognized model. Perhaps the intro should simply say that the book discusses mind control techniques that cults allegedly use. -- Beland 20:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to re-read the book to see to what extent the book is premised on the mind control theory. It was the original creator user:Ed Poor of the article who wrote this and I was never very happy with it. Andries 20:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mind control in this sense is I think a strong form of influence acquired and maintained by manipulation and resistant to evidence of being wrong, but again I have to re-read the book. Andries 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair of course, resistant to evidence of being wrong is not exactly confined to people in cults. :) Andries 20:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


State of scientific consensus

[edit]

I have to wonder whether there is any scientific evidence that any of the techniques advocated by the book are effective, if there is a raging debate, or if professional therapy societies and schools recommend different approaches than this book. I'm sure there is material on cults in peer-reviewed psychiatric journals. -- Beland 20:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course, but unless the sources make a connection with this particular book it is off-topic. Andries 20:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Wikipedia is not here to simply provide summaries of what books say. That would essentially just be echoing the point of view of the authors, and Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. It is also useful to put books in social and factual context. If a book says that the sky is usually green, it's important to note that the vast majority of scientists agree that it is, in fact, usually blue, whether or not an of those scientists have mentioned the green-sky book by name. Likewise, it is important to put this book in the context of the social and scientific controversies surrounding the topic it covers. I see that the article post-cult trauma indicates there is controversy over whether or not "cult trauma" is caused by the cults themselves, or by people being ripped away from the group and its ideology by others. It also indicates that there is controversy over whether or not "mind control" is real, and claims that most people who leave cults do so voluntarily and aren't traumatized by the experience. To get an objective view of this book, readers should be informed how the POV of the authors of this book compares with the major factions in the debate - right now the article doesn't even acknowledge that these debates exist, which could be very misleading. -- Beland 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this article gives a one sided view on the matter due to a lack of reputable on-topic sources then so be it. Wikipedia cannot and should not try to improve over the sources that are already there. The alternative would be to delete this article. Andries 21:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are my two pennies worth. Having come into contact with a "CULT" and believing it was some thing other (a religion...meditation practice) than a "CULT", then realising OH MY GOD it is a "CULT"! I say this to you all here: This is the only book that goes into all areas of the Recovery process, covering every detail of said process, including the family of the "CULT MEMBER" an often left out area in the recovery process. I don't believe it is an advertisement as it goes in the vein of academia and even instructional to therapists (some haven't a clue...) if they so chose to learn about the process and wanted to better understand such individuals and their on-going issues. See, many people don't realise that it may well take years to sort ones self out and this book is a good guide in doing that. Those interested in helping post cult individuals would be well served in reading this book as it is presented as a teaching tool (case studies....academic process) and by very well known academics might I add and a very positive point that all these scholars decided to participate is indicative of the value of the work that they wanted the vast public to have access to. This I believe is the first scientific (plese look at the contributors and their credentials) consensus by so many in one resource. So, it is my hope that you clean it up but not delete it. Thanks...TalkAbout 20:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One cannot determine whether or not a given book represents the scientific consensus just because the book itself says that it does, or by whether or not the contributors have "PhD" written after their names. There will always be a minority of academics who disagree with the mainstream, and who publish anyway. Other reputable books and peer-reviewed journals must be checked. As I indicate in my above comments (which I was apparently writing at the same time as you were writing the above comment) there appears to be some controversy over the causes of "post-cult trauma" and whether or not "mind control" is real, so it seems dubious that a book that "believes" in mind control could represent any sort of consensus view. -- Beland 21:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, but note that Wikipedia:NPOV and other policies are not a license to insert off-topic material which you seem to plan to do. Andries
  • Regarding "off topic" sources: Other book articles do mention sources that precede the book entirely, or don't address it, but are on-topic because they concern the content of the book. See for example Collapse (book). If this book is important enough to have a Wikipedia article, it should be easy enough to find negative reviews from academics from factions that say, do not believe in mind control. We also discuss the social impact of books; for example that Silent Spring influenced the ban on DDT and the modern environmental movement. For science works, we need to point out when a book takes sides in an ongoing controversy, not just let readers assume that everyone thinks the way the book does. For example, An Inconvenient Truth mentions the global warming controversy, and gives readers links to articles about the scientific investigation and political controversies. For this article, it's certainly fine to leave the detailed explanation of the mind control and post-cult trauma controversies to those articles. -- Beland 21:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I continue to hold the view that every statement that is not sourced to the book (a summary of the book is fine too) or not sourced to reviews or critiques of the book is off-topic and should be deleted. Andries 21:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding: "If this article gives a one sided view on the matter due to a lack of reputable on-topic sources then so be it. Wikipedia cannot and should not try to improve over the sources that are already there. The alternative would be to delete this article." If there are no reputable sources concerning a subject, then Wikipedia:No original research implies that Wikipedia can say nothing on the subject. In that case, it would probably be a better idea to use the book "Recovery from Cults" as a reference for one of the many points of view in articles like post-cult trauma. I think that would be easier than writing a special-purpose article on a science book which is not of resounding historical, political, or scientific importance. If no negative reviews on the book can be found, then it seems likely that either the book really isn't that important after all, or no one has really looked hard enough. -- Beland 21:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beland,
  • As to this:post-cult trauma indicates there is controversy over whether or not "cult trauma" is caused by the cults themselves, or by people being ripped away from the group and its ideology by others. This I believe in not the full picture. If an individual leaves on his own, said individual may have post-cult trauma, needing therapy and support services post experience. This is almost along the lines of cult apologist! It is not our practices they were nuts to begin with, they went nuts because they left us....etc.
  • The Stanford Prisoner experiment showed how in a controlled, documented situation that you could take the best individuals and cause them long term harm in a short period of time. So, your premise here is not valid in my humble opinion as I note that even prisoners/hostages suffer from the Stockholm syndrome, so naturally when cult members leave they will miss the controlled environment (even if it was not good), especially if it has a take care component. Please note that even abused children will ask to be returned to their abuser because it is all they have come to know.
  • Mind Control As to mind control, there are plenty of case studies and I believe the book does cite these, but to simply say it does not happen is not being realistic. I point out the case of Patty Heart, first a captive then transformed. I could live with a Recovery Article with this book as an example and others to come. This how ever is the first to offer guidelines to individuals that will come in contact with post cult individuals. PEACE TalkAbout 21:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beland,
As to offering a counter point of view I say let us insert some of the counter views of the contributors from their wiki pages. I do believe their work in the book is from the work presented on said wiki pages. So, there...we now can have a counter point of view and continue forward... Do you agree with this? PEACETalkAbout 21:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Amazon.com

[edit]

I agree with Beland. Wikipedia is not Amazon.com. If you want to know just what a book contains, when it was published, etc. go to Amazon or a similar site. If a book is prominent enough to have an article in WP, we need to then provide some context, present the controversy the book raised if any, and provide counterpoints to the author's views, if held by notable authors. Otherwise these type of articles are just advertisement. A book, is a product, and in articles about products we do not onkly describe the product, but we also describe what reliable sources say about the product. See Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) that talks about product advertisement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Se also WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ed Poor created this non-notable book entry. Andries 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: I do not understand what your argument is. If you believe that it should be deleted, you are wlcome to vote delete at the AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal in progress Wikipedia:Notability (books), that may interest editors involved in this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am only having a dispute with the lack of edits on this article by Ed Poor who created this article but failed to make it reasonable, let alone good article. Andries 23:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a review on a pay site probably a critical review because I know the stance of the reviewer, Saliba. Andries 17:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published?

[edit]

Langone is the director of the the organization that published the book, is that not self-publishing? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Norton, it is in the article. Andries 17:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strange.... Before I started editing, the article said that the AFF was the publisher. see diff ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was contradiction in the article. The publisher is Norton, not the AFF. Andries 17:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything wrong with the quote

[edit]

Others have highlighted this particular quote from the book too i.e. Stuart Wright in the book Politics of religious apostasy edited by David G. Bromley. Andries 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wich one of quotes? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see only one quote from the book. From chapter 10 by Paul Martin. Andries 20:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the review of the book or mentioning of the book? I cannot find it

[edit]
  • Shuppe, Anson and Darrel, Susan, The Attempted Transformation of a Deviant Occupation into a Therapy: Deprogramming Seeks a New Identity, A paper presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the SSSR/RRA, Norfolk, VA, October 2003. Available online

Andries 20:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general I think that there a disproportionate amount of discussion and reverting and tagging for the small article. Andries 20:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL

[edit]

As in WP:EL external links that discuss the subject of an article, and provide readers with alternative viewpoints, providing that these links are reliable sources, are welcome. Why the deletion? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, the link does not mention the book so it is off-topic. The subject of this article is this book. May be I am sometimes a sloppy reader, but I ask myself if you are worse than I. I sincerely cannot understand your edits and the questions on this talk page unless I assume that you do not take the time to read it well. Andries 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article in the EL, refers to Langone and his theories. It does not have to be specific to the book itself. I would suggest that you place an RfC, as I believe that common sense dictates that such external links are useful additions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article may be fine for the article Michael Langone but here it is off-topic. Andries 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following Jossi's flawed "common sense" line of reasoning we could insert many external links about Margaret Singer, Janja Lalich etc. Let us stick to the subject i.e. this book. Andries 21:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of this policy, however in that case we could add a ton more relevant links... Smeelgova 21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Critical review

[edit]

Unethical manipulation

[edit]

The book is a one-sided attack on alleged "manipulation" by "cults". It ignores the similarity between the unethical practices it attributes cults and the unethical practices actually conceded by deprogrammers. --Uncle Ed 20:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Review

[edit]

Relating To The:

  • "Review by John A. Saliba in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 1995), pp. 531-532 doi:10.2307/1387351 requires subscription"

I have also obtained the relevant review from Saliba and it is not a favorable review. Rather, it is mostly critical. If it does not violate any copyrights and is okay within the confines of Wikipedia Policy, I will post it here. SSS108 talk-email 04:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if the article is approved, I will paraphrase the review and use the above link as a reference. SSS108 talk-email 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wanted to point out that Arthur A. Dole's book-review is the only review to which full text is shown. Arthur A. Dole happens to be on the Board Of Directors of the ICSA (formerly known as AFF - American Family Foundation) [2], whose executive director is Michael Langone (the author of this book) [3]. Therefore, the only public book-review was written by a board member belonging to a foundation to which Langone is the executive director. This is indicative of bias. Of course the review is going to be favorable. Since there are no other public book-reviews, this points directly to the non-notability of this book. SSS108 talk-email 23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like an advertisement. It requires NPOV'ng aand the inclusion of other reviews than the one provided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of NPOV'ing and I lament the fact that neutral writing is hard work! Who among us cares enough about the subject AND about neutrality to do this work?
Often I find that the more I learn about something, the more convinced I become that one "side" is correct. How then can I write factually on the topic without slipping into advocacy? Only with YOUR help, I suppose. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The review by John Saliba is the only reputable critical review that I found. I do not have access to it. Andries 08:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is willing to work on this article, email me and I will send you the critical review by Saliba. SSS108 talk-email 05:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please send the review to me Andrieskd (AT) chello (DOT) nl Thanks in advance Andries 14:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

[edit]

It seems to me that one of the quotes cited on the article is so long, it may be a copyright violation issue. SSS108 talk-email 05:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-compliant

[edit]

This article is based solely on primary sources (the book itself), and as such it is not compliant with content policies. In order to be compliant, third party sources (critiques, reviews, etc) need to be used. I have tagged the article with the appropriate tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will add info from third party sources. Smeelgova 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Removed. I have added info from 2 different, peer-reviewed journals. I have strived to included both critical info, and factual statements in NPOV language. Smeelgova 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Recovery from cults book cover AFF.jpg

[edit]

Image:Recovery from cults book cover AFF.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Recovery from Cults/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*5 citations, 1 image book cover. Article needs expansion with reputable secondary sourced citations. Smee 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Last edited at 01:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 04:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recovery_from_Cults&oldid=1202364362"