User talk:Laundry Week
- You are mixed up if you dare to edit NVIXM again and in any way try to minimize the unbelievable number of sources describing it as a cult. Sure the Times-Union if you disagree, Keith.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am a fan of the work that NXIVM has done. I don't understand why the page wouldn't be treated as an organization page, detailing things the organization has done, instead of being a bucket to collect peoples' loosely related rants. I plan to do work on the page, and please don't revert my sourced additions without reason. I will start a thread on the talk page, so if you have any comments on the page's content, please take it up there. If you have any more personal attacks or completely unbacked claims, then feel free to attack me here on my talk page. :) Laundry Week (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I noticed all the contributions you have been making to many articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for that.
About the article NXIVM, although Milo is right about what he said about the print media, broadcast media has been much kinder to him and it, so I think you will be happy to use it if it helps you describe NXIVM in more detail for the readers. Here is one you can use: "A Dalai Lama Preview (aired 5/4/09) Sara Bronfman/Joe Donahue Conversation (2009-05-04)" http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1501604. I don't know if you know Joe Donahue, but he's about as friendly, intelligent and curious an interviewer as you are going to find. He asks Sara, who, as you may know, according to quite a few of the WP:RSes on this topic is the main finantial backer of NXIVM. Actually, I'd go so far as to say she basically owns it as she's paid for it many times over by now. Anyway, whatever about that, the point is, a better expert on the inner workings of NXIVM works than Sara Bronfman you will not find. Anyway, she expains there how the whole thing works, basically, where she compares it to a dojo and let's everyone know about the levels and such and the program. Also, on Google Scholar's patent search, there is publically available a description of what "Rational Inquiry", enough for you to right a section about it. There is a diagram there of it you can take to the graphics lab, I believe. This is how they describe themselves publically, so they cannot object. So if you would, use it to tell us at least as much as Sara freely admits to be what NXIVM is and how it works.
As you might know, I do not agree that your description of the Forbes article describes it particularly well. For example, you didn't mention the title. However, I'm not going to be able to stop you as I won't edit the mainspace because, based on the fact that I have had a subscription to the Albany Times Union and am so on, I see them as an alarming creepy scary cult backed by hugely powerful people and they just live a few miles from me and have the means to find me anytime they want and I want nothing at all to do with them in any way whatsoever in my life. I have tried and failed several times to get someone else to read the Forbes and everything else and follow proper procedure and write a WP:GOOD article on him and them and now I've given up. You are therefore free to keep going and give the same treatment to the next series of major articles about them and what they said. Vanity Fair was not a cover article, but it seems to me to be one with roughly the same stature and reputation as Forbes. If you would, you could write a similar section about their coverage.
- Thank you for that reference. It does seem like more information about the the operations would be interesting for everyone looking at the page. I'll work on writing that up in addition to including the Vanity Fair coverage over the next few days. Feel free to drop by here if you have any other concerns or wanted help working on some other pages; I'd be glad to help out. Laundry Week (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)