Talk:Academic study of new religious movements/Archive 2

message: *This Kim Knott citation is somewhat lacking.  
My Sweet Lord: The Hare Krishna Movement. 'Locating religion in the fabric of the secular: An experiment in two public sector organisations' (funded by AHRB, 2004-05, with Myfanwy Franks, publications forthcoming
#First of all, there is no existing article yet on Wikipedia for Kim Knott.
#Secondly, we have no idea from this citation as to the publication of the work, its veracity, or if it is readily available upon request. 
#Finally, "publications forthcoming", I would imagine that Wikipedia should set a standard for citable works, in that at the very least if an academic work is technically unpublished, it must be readily accessible to other academics and the public at large in order to become admissible as a valid source.
Y 22:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim Knott ? 

message: *If you take a look at List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations, their List guideline requires at least one WP:RS for every single entry on this list, even if that information is previously given at the entry's own particular article.  I think this is a great idea going forward, and if others wish to help I will also look to cite every current entry on this list.  As long as the piece of work performed/written by the individual satisfies WP:RS, and was not written in lets say a media/press/news source but rather some form of academic journal, I think that is okay.  I don't think we should, however, limit inclusion to studies and trials, because that might be a bit too inclusive.  Rather, if you wrote an article about a "cult" or a "new religious movement", and it was published in a scientific, sociological, religious, psychological, etc. related academic journal, then that is allowable.  Thoughts?  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion:  Require a [[WP:RS]] cite to a published source for every entry on this list 

message: *We should endeavor to make sure that all of the WP:RS sources on this list are formatted with WP:CIT, for uniformity and ease of locating the actual sources if need be at a later point in time.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CIT|Wikipedia's citation templates]] 

message: * makes a very good point with the  tag.  However, there are a lot of entries here.  Please give us some leeway and time to source all the entries with adequate cites, or as many as we can.  After a good deal of time, if we cannot find appropriate sources/papers, etc., we can begin to remove unsourced entries.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I will work on it over time, I as well think most have references - actually, most of the requisite references are probably stated in the articles about the individuals themselves.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Most have simply done a literature study. Andries (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few on this list have done empirical studies 

message: Restored sourced entries from a prior version of the page . Every single entry on the list now has an accompanying citation. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added sourced entries 

message: Reformatted, to wikitable sortable format structure. . Cirt (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformatted 

message: Some of the people on the list are questionable; perhaps some of them should be discussed. Getting an opinion piece published does not make one a "researcher", which is what this list is for. I'm not sure why Eileen Barker was removed; she is a well-respected researcher and conducted a major empirical study, which was cited. Also notably absent are major names such as David G. Bromley, Anson Shupe, Larry Shinn, J. Gordon Melton, Jeffrey K. Hadden, and perhaps Massimo Introvigne (I know less about his work). I would suggest adding these names. Sources are easy to find on their respective Wikipedia article pages. I would also suggest that other sources be found for most of those who are cited using publications of the International Cultic Studies Association (such as the Cultic Studies Journal). Its predecessor was once the premier anti-cult activism organization in the U.S., and its journal is not regarded as unbiased or academically strong. If the article referenced is clearly a reasonable, scientifically sound empirical study, we should retain it, but some of the citations are mere opinion pieces, and these should certainly be dropped in favor of a more reputable publication. Other citations should also be replaced with better ones, for example, the citation for Bill Goldberg (social worker) is "Cults on Campus: How Can You Help?", which obviously falls short of establishing Goldberg as a researcher. -DoctorW 06:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears  removed some entries based on personal opinion, and added Barker, which is of the same caliber as those that were removed. Let's keep this to a broad-based standard for inclusion, so as to avoid squabbles over which POV researcher is preferable. Cirt (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements above by  about Cultic Studies Journal are also horribly POV, biased, and patently false. The researcher that DoctorW holds up in such high regard, Eileen Barker, happens to sit on the Editorial Board of the Cultic Studies Journal. Cirt (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for additions 

message: What are the standards for inclusion on this list? Shouldn't they be stated clearly at the top of the article? I noticed that Steven Hassan was included. He is not a researcher. He has no training in research methods. He is an anti-cult activist, and doesn't pretend to be neutral. I think there may be others on the list who should also be removed. Without standards, it's hard to decide. Research involves scientific controls and specific methods to ensure objective, unbiased outcomes, and normally requires graduate training. The standards should not allow just any critic or apologist who did a little bit of reading and then wrote about their opinions to be called a "researcher." 131.158.237.205 (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not unilaterally remove entries from this list page. The standards for inclusion are published work on the subject matter in a peer reviewed publication. -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards for inclusion 

message: Note: I doubled the time period, for future archiving, to an extended period of time for subsequent discussions. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubled time period, for future archiving 

message: Following on the discussion immediately above about standards for inclusion, I agree that the standards need to be clarified. Since Cirt insists on deleting my last comment from the active discussion page (sending it back to the archive, on the grounds that it is "stale" because it was made several months ago), I will re-post it here:
::Some of the people on the list are questionable; perhaps some of them should be discussed. Getting an opinion piece published does not make one a "researcher", which is what this list is for. I'm not sure why Eileen Barker was removed; she is a well-respected researcher and conducted a major empirical study, which was cited. Also notably absent are major names such as David G. Bromley, Anson Shupe, Larry Shinn, J. Gordon Melton, Jeffrey K. Hadden, and perhaps Massimo Introvigne (I know less about his work). I would suggest adding these names. Sources are easy to find on their respective Wikipedia article pages. I would also suggest that other sources be found for most of those who are cited using publications of the International Cultic Studies Association (such as the Cultic Studies Journal). Its predecessor was once the premier anti-cult activism organization in the U.S., and its journal is not regarded as unbiased or academically strong. If the article referenced is clearly a reasonable, scientifically sound empirical study, we should retain it, but some of the citations are mere opinion pieces, and these should certainly be dropped in favor of a more reputable publication. Other citations should also be replaced with better ones, for example, the citation for Bill Goldberg (social worker) is "Cults on Campus: How Can You Help?", which obviously falls short of establishing Goldberg as a researcher. -DoctorW 06:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "DoctorW removed some entries [two, in fact: Hassan and Bonewits] based on personal opinion, and added Barker, which is of the same caliber as those that were removed."
I removed those two people because they do not come close to meeting the objective criteria. Ironically, these two write about their opinions without doing any research. Hassan does not even have any background or training in research, as pointed out above.
Most interestingly, Cirt believes that Hassan is of the same caliber as a researcher as Barker.
Perhaps there should be another list for authors who write about cults, but who are not researchers. Or, since many of them are anti-cult activists, a list for that. But let's not denigrate the good name and dedication of researchers by making the title meaningless. -DoctorW 01:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Comment: Cultic Studies Journal is a reputable publication. The very scholar that User:DoctorW writes positively about above, Eileen Barker, is a member of the editorial review board of the Cultic Studies Journal. The tone of the commentary by User:DoctorW is a bit over the top and unnecessary, as explained with this one example regarding double-standards related to Cultic Studies Journal. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add - in my view Barker is among the leading experts on the sociology of New Religious Movements whereas Hassan is an anti-cult lobbyist relying on outdated theories. But with the current inclusion criteria it seems difficult to argue that he shouldn't be included. ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is the general viewpoint held by many cult members regarding Hassan - who do not appreciate the light shed by his research and writings. But, that is only a personal opinion and viewpoint. It also does not address the double-standard pointed out, with regards to the POV interpretation of Cultic Studies Journal by User:DoctorW. Now we also have User:Maunus praising Eileen Barker, who, again, is on the editorial review board of, Cultic Studies Journal. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for painting me as "a cult member", would you like to elaborate on that or do you just throw around ad hominem arguments and assumptions of bad faith whenever someone disagrees with you? It happens to be a viewpoint that can be sourced to quite a number of actual academic experts on the sociology of religion that Singer's theories and the way they are used by deprogrammers is thoroughly unsupported and unscientific. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Was not my intention. Merely pointing out it is the same POV. -- Cirt (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also the pov of the American Psychological Association. Association fallacy.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't think you need take Cirt's statement as personally applying to you, as it certainly can be read as a more general truth (that's the way I read it). There is, and always will be, a range of "theories" in scholarship. To paint one as "outdated" or "unsupported" is to ignore how quickly consensus (where it can be found at all) changes. Today's theory du jour is tomorrow's "outdated" and yesterday's "unsupported" can come around again as tomorrow's popular consensus. I suspect even Hassan has changed over the years. Regardless, Hassan certainly fits the criteria for this list, whether or not you agree with him or his views.  • Astynax talk 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Astynax. -- Cirt (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objective criteria for entries 

message: Please beware of canvassing by  with regards to this article. These multiple user talk page postings   , are most certainly not "Neutrally worded notifications". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware of the guideline Wikipedia:Canvassing (or that Cirt might be stalking me). I did not think it was inappropriate to express my observations frankly about what's happening to this article and ask for input from 3 editors who I believe to be level-headed and intelligent. I do admit, however, that this is a clever way for Cirt to deflect attention away from his own behavior; perhaps he would like to put the quality of this article first instead of spending so much energy being contentious. -DoctorW 03:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: User:DoctorW posted to the user talk pages, "An editor who may not know much about the topic seems to have taken "ownership" of the article and is ignoring criteria for inclusion that have been in place for years." This is indeed a rather blatant attempt at poisoning the well of the discussion, even before the users canvassed by User:DoctorW had looked at the page or its discussion page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the notification itself was not correctly worded and does run afoul of WP:CANVASS. However being a member of WP:NRM I find it naturally that I be notified of discussions about NRM related subjects, and natural that I chip in with my view point.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, then in that case you could have been notified with a neutrally worded message, in one central location, not a POV-pushing post to a user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canvassing 

message: Only notable entries should be added to this list. People listed on this page should all have existing Wikipedia articles. -- Cirt (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed some non-notable redlinked entries. Of course, they could be added back, if they have existing Wikipedia articles. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, above you stated that "The standards for inclusion are published work on the subject matter in a peer reviewed publication", a criterion which I think all the people you deleted (Peter B. Clarke, Andreas Grünschloss, Lorne L. Dawson and Gerald Willms) easily meet. I'll create BLPs for those that qualify, but we need to make up our mind here what the standards for inclusion actually are. Their having a Wikipedia biography is, I think, putting the cart before the horse. --JN466 21:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is in addition to having a Wikipedia article as a requirement, prior to being included on this page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted a note to the NRM project's talk page; perhaps we can get some other editors to weigh in. Personally, I think peer-reviewed publications speak for themselves, regardless of whether we have written a BLP on them yet or not, or indeed whether they qualify under WP:PROF or not. Cheers, --JN466 21:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. Someone could have published and yet not be independently notable themselves enough for an article on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. We do not avoid mention of all people in our articles who are not notable enough for their own entry, if they are otherwise within the scope of the article. If someone has published several dozen peer-reviewed studies, that makes them a researcher in the field, whether they qualify under WP:PROF for a BLP of their own or not. --JN466 02:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of entries 

message: Other than the Usual caveats of What is a NRM or Cult i think most of this should be relatively easy 
Draft Proposal:
* Published at least 3 articles in the field or at least 1 well received theoretical work in the field 
* Attacked as a "Cult apologist" (usually a good indication that one is interested in a research and not screaming evil cult)
any thoughts? Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That seems incredibly POV, especially the second part. -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have all have our own POV, perhaps you are right Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  any other Criteria you can think of? Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Description as researcher or performed study of cults or new religious movements, by independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh Yes, the building blocks of Wiki, WP:RS and WP:V, I say we try and limit it too Scholarly Sources as the media is legendary for defining "Expert" something totally different from what Academia would call expert. This Will substantially improve the quality rather than a Resume Posting place. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Keep it simple. Described as a researcher by at least two independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Professors and sociologists are rarely described as "researchers"; they are more commonly called scholars, professors, sociologists, scientists etc. who have published a study, or simply named and their work referenced. --JN466 03:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be okay too. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) --JN466 03:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The standard on Wikipedia is WP:RS and WP:V, regardless of your personal stated POV opinions about sources, "Being called a researcher by a friend, sympathizer, or sloppy writer doesn't either. The first requirement must necessarily be that the person is actually a researcher according to the normal academic definition, not according to some convoluted definition that contradicts the normal one." -- without anything to back up your POV claims. -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines for Inclusion 

message: The NPOV tag was added  by , despite agreement above from four editors (myself, , , and ) that inclusion of the Hassan entry on the list is appropriate. Advocating removal of the entry is a minority fringe viewpoint, and the NPOV tag should be removed from the top of the list page. -- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how a situation where four editors argue against four others (Resident Anthropologist, DoctorW, Myself and two IP's that are probably the same person) can be described as "agreement". ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, indeed it is difficult to assess when your arguments are continually either dismissed as factually inaccurate, and/or rapidly addressed by addition of WP:RS sources that exactly meet the demands being requested by those users. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we arent at the need for a NPOV tag quite yet as it still seems like we can be civil. Maurice K. Temerlin Bill Goldberg (social worker),Steve Hassan, Carol Giambalvo, and Isaac Bonewits should all probably be taken off the list. Especially Bonewits who seems to be a Neo-pagan druid  author rather than any credentials as a researcher. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Will be easier to discuss objections as they come up, individually. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They just came up.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Let us discuss one at a time, please, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just struck Maurice K. Temerlin as it seems he does hold a Relevant PHD, The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: One idea we could explore would be to separate the academic researchers from the non-academics. --JN466 18:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That will get too unwieldy. Best to keep it to one section, organized by field and then alphabetically, as current. -- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two sections? 

message: It seems to me that it might be better to sort the list by the person's name. That way it would be easier to find someone on the list. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click on the black up/down arrows at the top of columns, the list will sort by name in ascending/descending order (the reader may also choose to sort by field, nationality or date of birth). I suppose that might be something to mention at the top of the list if necessary. For purposes of editing and verification, however, the current grouping by field, followed by last name is useful.  • Astynax talk 17:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort by name? 

message: Two journalists who might be added are Richard Behar, who wrote a famous article for Time on Scientology, and Robert Parry who has written extensively on the Unification Church. Borock (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose adding Behar. His Time article is of course well-cited, but it's an investigative journalist's work on one particular group, and the bulk of his work is about entirely different topics. One article, however prominent and well researched, doesn't make a staff writer an NRM researcher. Parry seems to be much the same; lots of general political topics, only one of which touches upon the NRM field. --JN466 02:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journalists