Talk:Academic study of new religious movements/Archive 1

message: I think that this list should be re-named into list of cults and new religious movements researchers. Some people who are listed here, such as Eileen Barker, generally avoid the term cult. Others find it a appropriate term as long as it properly and neutrally defined. Andries 06:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the minor change that cult and movement should be singular terms (having 'list of cults' as the first three words is misleading). Title is still a little clunky. Antonrojo 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: the comment above was moved from List of cult researchers to preserve the discussion. Antonrojo 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Renamed

message: *Perhaps we should find some way to split this group into subsections/organize? Smeelgova 20:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Maybe by their credentials, such as Sociologists of Religion, Psychiatrists,  etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sounds good.  Smeelgova 00:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the various individuals into subsections by their topic of study/credentials.  Smeelgova 00:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: subsections

message: I am not so sure the "Authors" section belongs in this article. Some of them are not "reseachers" at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their works are cited by numerous other researchers in the field.  They have done extensive research through the course of finding sources for their works.  Smeelgova 22:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That does not make them researchers, alongside scholars. You may want to create an article List of authors of books related to cults or something like that. As for the politicians, same approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "researcher" does not have to be a "scholar" Tanaats 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And a "politician" is not a researcher, unless he really is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not have to have minutiae-style sub-lists.  It would be better to have more accurate subheadings within this article itself, and have all the various cult/NRM authories within one article.  Smeelgova 06:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "To make researches; investigate carefully" Tanaats 17:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authors 

message: For anyone familiar with the research literature on the subject, it is obvious what the order of section entries should be if ordered by importance (it is not POV). Alphabetical order roughly reverses the order of importance, and is not at all appropriate at present. The "Authors" section contains people who probably shouldn't be on the page (unless under a final section entitled "Other investigators"), and politicians are similarly not in the appropriate category as "researchers". They should either be moved as proposed above, or likewise be put in a section at the end for "Other investigators". Order of importance is the principle behind order by most common first in disambiguation_pages. -DoctorW 05:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we are expected to be guided without question by your authority, would you mind explaining the rationale behind this "obvious" order?  Thanks. Tanaats 05:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly alphabetical order by profession/educational background is the most neutral way to order these individuals.  Smeelgova 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Reordered. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this looks much better.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 02:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of section entries

message: I think it would be of great value to the reader, and would even help us editors evaluate the entries on the list, if some or all of the research authored by each of those on this list were cited in footnotes. -DoctorW 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations of research studies

message: This section should list authors only. Not every person that was interviewed or ever spoke on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Herbert L. Rosedale was a contributor to Recovery from Cults (book).  Smeelgova 11:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A "contributor" to a book does no make a person an "author". This section shoukld only include "published authors". Same thing for self-published authors, or authors of obscure periodicals. These should also not be included. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See another book authored by the subject: The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ (published once and then again in a revised edition).  I will restore.  Smeelgova 11:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Self published author? "Amer Family Foundation"? We need to have some kind of threshold for inclusion, don't you think? Same applies to "contributors". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The book was published once and then revised and published again.  And whether or not the author is self-published is irrelevant, this does not invalidate the work.  I will remove the tag.  Smeelgova 11:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authors 

message: As proposed, this section needs to be moved to his own article or merged with Cults and governments. It is not fitting an article on NRM researchers. Alternatively, a list of politicians opposing cults and NRMs could be compiled and placed on its own article, as that seems to be who these people are, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your opinion.  However the original version of this list included government researchers, and that is what these individuals are.  Much independent research is done in drafting legislation and/or government functions investigating cults.  If you feel like it, feel free to add information to the Cults and governments article.  As that is an article and this is a list, the information can be in two places in different formats.  Apparently others feel the same way.  Smeelgova 11:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That is your opinion, as the other was mine... My proposal includes moving these to their own list, such as List of politicians opposing cults as well as considering moving to them more appropriate article.  This list is a list of researchers, not a list in which every politician that ever signed a bill on the subject needs to be listed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, that is an inappropriate name for the list, sounds way too POV.  Second of all, these individuals have not simply "signed bills", but are authorities on the subject in their own right, through the research they have independently done on the subject.  Many of these individuals have spoken out on the issues as commentators, written their own works on the subjects related to their research/actions in government, etc.  Smeelgova 11:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that this is the case. I checked some of the names you added recently and these are most definitively  politicians and not researches. Would you add a politician to "List of Cancer researchers", just because a politician supported a bill or studied, and/or commented on the issue? Of course not. Would you add a politician to the "List of environment researchers" because they passed a bill on global warming,? Of course not. And BTW, a "List of politicians opposing cults" would not be POV, if indeed these politicians opposed cults. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Frankly, I do not see why we should have such a list of politicians in this list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other individuals feel differently.  At any rate, yes, if the politicians who supported/authored the types of bills you mentioned above had appeared in media as expert commentators on the subject, authored articles and/or bills on the subject, and/or served on highly influential panels on the subject, I would consider them researchers.  Smeelgova 11:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: At any rate, there are currently not that many people in this section of the list.  Why don't we just wait a while, and see how the list develops?  Your proposals can always be incorporated at a later date.  Smeelgova 11:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Other individuals" include you and an anon user with 10 edits. Do you mean to wait until this list degrades to a point that we then need to clean it up? Not sure we should go that way.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that the list will degrade.  And if other users only includes myself and an anon, then we should also wait and see what others think.  In any event, the list can simply get longer and users can use the table of contents to go to a specific subsection/individual.  Smeelgova 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am engaging you in the discussion, I have not ignored your argument.  And your tag is inappropriate.  No one is disputing the "factual accuracy" that these individuals are authors and politicians on the subject of cults.  Smeelgova 12:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, You are skirting the issue. I am asserting that these people may be not authors and  may be not researchers. Please restore the tag, that is highly appropriate given the dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your tag is inappropriate, because these indiduals are indeed authors and politicians, and researchers, see below.  Smeelgova 12:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And I will repeat my response above here, again: yes, if the politicians who supported/authored the types of bills you mentioned above had appeared in media as expert commentators on the subject, authored articles and/or bills on the subject, and/or served on highly influential panels on the subject, I would consider them researchers.  Smeelgova 12:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you did. Also note the issues related to lists at WP:LIST, that advises us: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit." We need to work on a lead to this list that explains the inclusion criteria. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politicians section 

message: Same concern as expressed above. We should not mix oranges and apples, IMO. Having a list in which prominent scholars are listed alongside a journalist that published one article on the subject, may be violating NPOV undue weight, as well as original research, and verifiability (e. g. asserting that the journalist is a "new religious movement researcher" when no reputable source describes the journalist as such.) A solution could be found by providing sources in which these persons are described as such, rather than providing a source that an editor believes make him/her a "new religious movement researcher."  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning.  All of the individuals listed have published prominent works on the subject.  Do you have an issue with a particular individual?  Smeelgova 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media section 

message: I used the description of these people as stated in their biographical articles. They are anti-cult advocates, are they not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps.  But here in this list we have referred to everyone else by their profession and/or educational background.  In this list we should subdivide individuals by profession/training, and not by their motivations.  I will restore in the meantime, but "anti-cult advocate" is inappropriate for this list.  Smeelgova 17:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That may work for now, Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks alright for now.  Again, I don't see the immediate need for clarifying, we can always adjust lists in the future.  Smeelgova 19:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: These comments are for everyone, but to User:Tanaats, I wasn't too offended, it seemed like you simply overreacted a bit. Others here have been far more rude (even since then), to the point of being offensive and insulting. Btw, I didn't say you should pull my edit summary out and post it here on the talk page, merely that you might respond to my reasoning.
It seems to me there are 3 issues in the introduction that I was dealing with:
1. Use of the word "and" in "new religious movements and cults". This "and" can be read - by those who would draw a distinction between "new religious movements" and "cults" - as a person qualifying for the list if they have conducted research on groups in both categories. Similarly, the statement "Researchers of new religious movements and cults made sure to buy gifts on Valentine's Day for their wives and girlfriends" could be taken to mean that some cult researcher might buy a gift for his wife but forget to buy one for his girlfriend too (or vice-versa). A better choice than "and" (or the slash that I used) is "or", which can be read either as following or not following a distinction between "new religious movement" and "cult".
2. Enumerating the categories in the definition: This bad idea has already been taken care of. The criterion is researcher; whether someone is an "author" or not, for example, has no bearing.
3. The third issue is the most important, and I have mentioned it twice already, but it seems as though no one has paid attention. A researcher conducts research. This does not include someone repeating what they heard from someone else, a highly biased "study" that does not follow standard procedures either by a cult member or a detractor, or other expressions of opinion that do not follow standard research methods. The only way to exclude such "study" or "investigation" which is not research is to include the criteria of peer review. Anyone who would seek to pack this list with people they like might argue that rather than each research profession deciding who to accept based on peer review, that he himself (the Wikipedia editor in question) can evaluate who has done work that meets the standards that could be called "research" rather than some less rigorous investigation. Besides the gargantuan hubris involved in such a proposal, it would never work because there would be varying opinions; it is a slippery slope from which there is no recovery. The only criterion that could work is the standard of peer review. That is the standard by which someone is judged within each field. Wikipedia editors cannot substitute their own arbitrary standards (which would be unworkable anyway). Let's not make Wikipedia into a farce; it is an encyclopedia. -DoctorW 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a very sensible proposal. Otherwise, editors will be engaging in original research, by adding what in their opinion are "researchers". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately within this particular field, there is not much neutral available peer review.  One neutral work on the subject is the book Misunderstanding Cults (book). Smeelgova 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you serious? Most of the academics listed have published in peer reviewed journals.  And that book is certainly not neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  I was simply pointing out that no matter how the material is classified, it seems most researchers have an agenda of some sort.  The book Misunderstanding Cults (book) and the work by Professor Dvorkin really outline the vast differences between some of the researchers and their potential motivations:  there are those researchers that willingly accept monies and financial support from cults/new religious movements - and there are those that do not.  The book has contributors from researchers on both sides of the aisle, and was equally praised as such, how is it not neutral?  Smeelgova 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same reasons you stated above. The book presents the opinions of authors, each one with his particular world-view. Note that this is a list. As such, the criteria needs to be well established to avoid "promotion" of certain people to a category of "researchers". For example Deborah Layton) is not a researcher, but a person that wrote a book about her experiences in a group widely considered a destructive cult. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly noted.  However, her book is used as a reference text at California State University, Gonzaga University, and Stanford University.  Smeelgova 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Ir must be a fascinating book. But the author is not a researcher. Removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The author is not simply citing her own experiences, she performed research in order to write the work, as reflected in its presence at reputable universities.  Restored.  Smeelgova 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The book itself was reviewed in multiple peer-review sources.  Her research for the work, (external to her personal experiences) included research into the financial and historical documents of the organization.  Smeelgova 20:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. She is not a "researcher". She was a victim that recounted her experiences in a book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no reason why not to have multiple sources per person.  It is also a good place for references as a waiting spot until articles are created.  Smeelgova 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Then combine them in one ref. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Researchers": published, peer-review 

message: We need to define criteria very tightly, otherwise there will be disputes about many of the people listed. In my experience with lists, which is quite substantial, unless there is a very unambiguous criteria, these lists become POV magnets to either "promote" a person (is the list has positive connotations) or "demote" a person (if the list carry negative connotations). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should take a break as well, and stop using so much sarcasm all the time in your comments and edit summaries.  That would be most appreciated.  I do not appreciate it when you add every single one of your edits and/or comments with "Thanks" when you clearly do not mean "Thanks".  Sure. Ir must be a fascinating book. But the author is not a researcher. Removed  This sounds like sarcasm to me as well.  The more polite you attempt to act towards others, the more polite they will be towards you.  The more sarcasm and contrite remarks you continue to make, the more likely it is that it will be more difficult to work with other editors.  We have both agreed in the past that these relationships go 50/50.  I have tried very hard to work on being more polite, on incorporating many of your suggestions, on listening to your advice - I would appreciate it if you would at least make a small effort to do the same.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Smeelgova, please note that I appreciate your contributions, and there is no need to get so flustered when you are challenged by a fellow editor. Note that the perception of "sarcasm" is only yours. I most definitively was not using sarcasm to make my arguments. The issue at hand is the lack of criteria or inclusion. A lecturer or book author, may not be a researcher, and vice versa. If this was a list of people that lectured, wrote, or commented on cults or new religious movements, then we would have no problems. But as a list of researchers, with the common association of that term, we need to establish some threshold below which entries are not acceptable. Otherwise this will become such list, and the name of the article will need to be changed accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not patronize me.  You are fully aware yourself of when you are using sarcasm.  And even if you feel that you are not, I wish that you would at least try to tone down your sarcasm and adjust your attitude a little bit.  At least try to act nicer and kinder to editors who are not Administrators.  Smeelgova 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would certainly think that individuals who have lectured on cults numerous times at universities reputable like Stanford University, written about cults, researched their history and financial dealings like Deborah Layton has, should be able to be included in this list, without changing the name to something silly like you mentioned.  This again stinks of sarcasm, with your ridiculous list of people that lectured, wrote, or commented on cults or new religious movements.  Come on.  Smeelgova 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Extraordinary response, Smeelgova, and most unbecoming, I must say. When I said that it must be a fascinating book, I meant just that, without a hint of sarcasm. When I said "sure", I mean just that. And when I say thanks, I mean just that. Maybe you need to take a hard look in the mirror and see the lack of good faith that you exhibit in your interactions with others, and the way that you pre-judge other editors.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your attitude and degree of unpoliteness is just as extraordinary and unbecoming.  It is certainly extraordinary that you never seem to rightfully acknowledge when I acquiesce and give in to your demands, or see the potential good in your arguments, or vocifersouly participate in discussion, or find more and more reputable sources, and back up my edits with sourced citations.  Again, the golden rule, the nicer you act towards me, the nicer I will be.  Maybe you need to take a hard look in the mirror and see the lack of good faith that you exhibit when commenting to others on talk pages.  Maybe you also pre-judge other editors.  And maybe you should watch the way your comments can be contstrued.  I do try to assume good faith, but sometimes it can be exasperating.  It is difficult to believe that when you say "sure" and "thanks" you always "mean it", but I will do my best to attempt to see that.  If you behave more kindly and politely, so will others towards you.  Smeelgova 07:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Smeelgova. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome.  Smeelgova 00:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria 

message: Are two very distinct things. Suggest keeping only Psychotherapists and removing all others that are not scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment the only counselor without a formal educational degree in the subject is Carol Giambalvo.  However, she is established as a researcher/authority according to multiple sources, and is highly published in peer-review sources on the subject matter.  Smeelgova 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "highly published in peer-review sources" means? The inclusion of a cite of a book in a peer reviewed article, does not make the book "peer reviewed". Read Peer review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any event, she is also published in Cultic Studies Review, a peer-reviewed journal with numerous notable researchers as members/contributors.  Smeelgova 05:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychotherapists/Counsellors 

message: * Compare to List of clinical psychologists.  It is not common for Wikipedia lists of people to have citations after the name of every single notable individual, if this invidual already has an existing article that cites all of these sourced works/articles.  Smeelgova 04:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare also to:
*List of anthropologists
*List of lawyers
*List of psychologists
*List of sociologists  - Absolutely none of these lists, which all predate our list, utlize citations next to individual subject, especially if said citations are already present with tthe articles about those indiduals.  If anything the only other piece of information common to lists of people - is birth/death year and nationality.  Smeelgova 04:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The question is not whether we have broken the rules of "the way it is done" on Wikipedia, as though that precedent is somehow inviolate, but rather, what is best for readers. Nevertheless, I will accept your point of view on this. -DoctorW 13:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need for citations on existing article subjects. 

message: Please do not add someone to this list unless there is a brief description on his/her page of the empirical study(ies) on cults or new religious movements conducted by that researcher. There is also a page for authors (List of authors opposing cults) for those who write about cults or new religious movements who have not conducted empirical research studies. -DoctorW 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an inappropriate move.  You yourself have stated above that qualifications include "peer-review".  These individuals have done so, and/or published in academic and/or respected settings.  Please do not start now to contradict your own earlier statements upon which we had achieved consensus...  Smee 23:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these lawyers has conducted an empirical research study on cults or new religious movements. -DoctorW 23:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They have been published in respected peer-reviewed sources.  Smee 23:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have offered a compromise and retained only those that published in peer reviewed sources.  Smee 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If my wife gets her favorite recipe for fondue published in a peer-reviewed source, can I add her name to this list? -DoctorW 23:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not respond to that.  Smee 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You understand my point, don't you? Peer-review (or academic book) is only one qualification. The more important qualification is that they actually conducted a research study. -DoctorW 23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a new qualification that you are creating all of a sudden.  We had agreed previously upon "peer-review" and "empirical research".  Smee 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you be a "researcher" if you haven't conducted research? Here is the first sentence of the article: "This list includes researchers that have conducted empirical studies on cults and/or new religious movements." This is not a "new" qualification. And it could hardly be otherwise, given the title of the article. People who have written but who have never "conducted empirical studies on cults and/or new religious movements" may belong on the "authors" page, but not here. -DoctorW 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look up the word "empirical".  Smee 23:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: DoctorW., I am not aware of empirical research by Melton, but to exclude him would be very strange. Andries 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you are not familiar with his work. -DoctorW 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DoctorW, Not very, I have to admit. What is the title of published empirical research by Melton? Andries 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, then I am probably mistaken about the word empirical. I thought that empirical research always involved assembling quantitative data. Andries 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Qualifications for this list