Talk:Academic study of new religious movements
Article Renamed
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)
- 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)
- Note: the comment above was moved from List of cult researchers to preserve the discussion. Antonrojo 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Move Rick Ross?
Rick Ross does not fit the stated criteria. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can't easily find information about his education. However, the intended purpose is to list researchers who get peer or government review for their work and try to avoid pro or anti-cult statements in an attempt to be neutral which probably isn't the case here. I'm adding him to the List of anti-cult organizations and individuals since he's listed as a 'cult de-programmer' and 'exit counsler'. A few arguments for removing him from this list are 1) he has no formal degree in a related area [1] and 2) no peer reviewed research. On the other hand since he's served as an expert witness in trials, and started an institute that seems to have a fairly objective view of cults, I think a fair argument can be made that he's a 'margin case' between the two lists. My inclination is to remove him from the list and I wouldn't revert that. Feedback from people who know his work better would be good.Antonrojo 20:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would argue that moving Mr. Ross to that category is more accurate.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes,
- what about the fact that he has served as an expert witness at trials and started an institute with the title for the study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements?
- What about the fact that he has served as a consultant to the FBI,
- lectured at numerous universities on the topic,
- been a paid consultant to the television and media on the subject,
- been deposed as an expert witness in 8 states (this alone should be enough, if 8 other courts think he is an expert witness?
- For the above reasons I will add him back in to the list.
Yours, Smeelgova 20:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC).
No one is arguing that he is not a consultant, or that he paricipated as an exper witness. But that does not make him a researcher, to warrant a listing alongside scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I see him more an an activist. He's been an advocate of the theory of mind control, he is a former deprogrammer, and he was involved in the FBI/ATF raid on Waco. There is, of course, controversy over how much he influenced the decision to storm the compound. In any case, he does not conduct "research": he's not an academic or scholar of any kind, no matter how much anti-cult people are determined to cite him as an "expert". --Uncle Ed 15:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
subsections
- Perhaps we should find some way to split this group into subsections/organize? Smeelgova 20:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC).
- Sure. Maybe by their credentials, such as Sociologists of Religion, Psychiatrists, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK, sounds good. Smeelgova 00:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC).
- I have moved the various individuals into subsections by their topic of study/credentials. Smeelgova 00:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
- OK, sounds good. Smeelgova 00:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC).
Government?
I think that we are mixing apples with oranges by adding government officials to this list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- We can break the list down into separate sections. These individuals were involved with drafting the About-Picard law, one would imagine that they must have been involved in loads of research. I will restore. Smeelgova 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
- Also, when this page was first created, the description included government researchers as appropriate. This is a major change, and I think we should discuss it - as well as break the researchers down into groups by category. Smeelgova 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
Some of thes politicians are not "researchers", they are "politicians" with an interest in the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but they are politicians who have done heavily extensive research and writing on the subjects, as a result of their legislative efforts. I will restore these. Smeelgova 22:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
- They are not researchers, they are politicians that were involved in passing some laws. You would not call them researchers, or list them alongside them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- They have been interviewed as to their expertise in media/press sources. They have done extensive research in the course of their legislation. In some cases they know more about the subject than many of the other researchers on this list. Yes, they can be classified as researchers. Smeelgova 22:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
- They are not researchers, they are politicians that were involved in passing some laws. You would not call them researchers, or list them alongside them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The current categorization is not 100% accurate. Some of the people in the "Theology" section are Sociologists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
Authors
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)
- 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).
- 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)
- A "researcher" does not have to be a "scholar"[2] Tanaats 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- And a "politician" is not a researcher, unless he really is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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).
- "To make researches; investigate carefully"[3] Tanaats 17:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Lawyers and politicians?
Jean-Pierre Jougla is a "solicitor". "Lawyers" should be in the subject heading. Tanaats 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge
I will be moving the section "Politicians" to the article called Cults and governments ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- See related discussion at: Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults, on why others may not think this is such a good idea. Lists are lists so that they can be propagated and be a resource for one-click stop-shop info. Perhaps there is a way to keep the list here and also make a small section on the page you mentioned, so the info will be in both places? Also not a good idea to make declaratory statements on things you will do (merging and such) without any discussion. Better to say "I am proposing to move such and such..." 64.19.74.116.
- The section should not be merged into Cults and governments. The individuals and information should be listed here, and if relevant, mentioned in the appropriate mainspace of the article you mentioned, and/or other articles for that matter. Smeelgova 08:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
Order of section entries
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)
- 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)
- Clearly alphabetical order by profession/educational background is the most neutral way to order these individuals. Smeelgova 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
- Reordered. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, this looks much better. Thanks. Smeelgova 02:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
- Reordered. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Citations of research studies
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)
Changed criteria for inclusion
DrW, you've changed the criteria for inclusion stated at the very beginning of the article. Changing the criteria by which it is decided what should or should not be placed in the article is a big change. I've put it back the way it was until it can be discussed. Tanaats 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- The only discussion of the subject above is your quoting the third definition of research found on the page you cited instead of the first one (and the first one corresponding to the common definition in such matters and to the qualification I provided in my bold edit). What other criteria would you suggest? The prevailing definition of research used in encyclopedias should be used on Wikipedia. You did not respond to my statement (in my edit summary) that the criteria should be:
- "'Scientific or clinical research'; other methodologies shouldn't be called 'research', otherwise every cult member is a researcher."
- It also would have been courteous for you to have posted here what I wrote that you deleted:
- This list includes those who have conducted scientific or clinical research on new religious movements/cults which has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
- Personally, I think there is no safeguard preventing this page from deteriorating into a farce unless some similar criteria to those I've proposed be adopted. -DoctorW 05:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here's the way I see things:
- Yes, that may have been all the discussion we had previously on the term "research", and you are certainly entitled to open the discussion up again.
- I don't think that I should be expected to scrape your comments out of the edit summaries and copy them here. I think it's up to you to state them here on the Talk page. I'm open to correction on this.
- As for the etiquette question, my goodness I haven't seen you move my stuff to the talk page after you've rv'd it! Tanaats 06:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here's the way I see things:
- I will remember your words above, and bring them to bear next time you do an unilateral edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- So far I don't believe that I've made a unilateral change that significantly altered the criteria for inclusion of material in an article. That was the basis of my objection. If I have unilaterally made an edit of the same magnitude, then I apologize and I wish you would point out where I did that so I can understand better what I should or shouldn't do. Other than that, I have been trying to follow WP:BRD.
- But now that you have made me think a bit more, what I should have done is to follow WP:BRD myself by reverting and inviting DrW to discuss on the Talk page, rather than rebuking him for having made the edit "unilaterally". So I apologize to DrW for the inappropriate rebuke. Tanaats 02:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Authors
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)
- Herbert L. Rosedale was a contributor to Recovery from Cults (book). Smeelgova 11:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
- 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)
- 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).
- 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)
Politicians section
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)