Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:34, 3 September 2008

Arbitrary section header

You guys can argue this if you wish, but let's be reasonable: Buddhism pre-dates Christianity (which is not on the list) by a few hundred years. I'm removing it. Islam a) does not begin with a "J" and b) is nearly 1400 years old, is the second largest religious movement in the world, etc. It, too, is not a "new religious" movement. unixslug 00:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Criteria

What criteria includes Zorastianism, the old monotheistic religion in existence, as a "new religious movement"? Or, for that matter, atheism? -Willmcw 20:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The list must start with a definition otherwise the list is meaningless. The definition that I used was proposed by Barker who coined the term. I strongly oppose making a list without definition. Andries 20:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason why Zoroastrianism was included was because Zappaz removed the definition and copied a list of religious movevements compiled by Cowan. I oppose this methodology. I will later try to integrate Zappaz edits one by obe into the list. Each NRM has to be checked individually whehter it fits the definition. Andries 20:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The definition is stated in the intro. It is wide, yes, but NPOV and without WP:NOR. If you don't like it, we can split the list in two: List of new religious movements by Eileen Barker and List if new religious movements by Jefferey Hadden and Douglas Cowan. That will be silly... But you cannot "hijack" the List of new religious movements and use it to list from Barker's. --ZappaZ 20:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I warn you of WP:NOR. Please thread carefully. And in the future, while we are in a moratorium on a similar article, it will be nice manners to inform editors involved that you are working on a related article.. Thanks. --ZappaZ 20:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not care which definition is used as long as it is clearly defined in the beginning and a "definition" referring to (very different) lists compiled by several other people is not a real definition. The most logical thing to do is use the definition of the person who coined the term and is still influential in the field. Andries 20:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

To avoid yet-another-edit-war, please find a scholarly definition of "New Religious Movement", by a source that we can agree with, put that in the intro and then evaluate each entry for inclusion. What say you? --ZappaZ 20:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I will do that but that was exactly what had I tried to do, though possibly not very carefully worded. Andries 21:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that we need to find a definition of the term "New Religious Movement" as it widely held by scholars (so that it is NPOV), and not just by one or another. Let's put our research hats and find a good citation. --ZappaZ 21:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt whether we could find a definition that is widely held. I oppose the list by Hadden and Douglas as a basis for this article that contains among other Buddism! Andries 21:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, 'No one cares what Andries think. This is WP, we have WP:NPOV and WP:NOR thank you-very-much. We need a widely held definition of NRM. Find one and let's discuss. Thanks. It won't be easy. --ZappaZ 21:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to forget that one can have widely divergent opinions about how these policies should be applied in practice for a specfic article and hence my opinion and opinions of other contributors do matter. Andries 21:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, I do not think there such a thing as a widely held definition of a new religious movement. Andries 21:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

NRMs don't include Hinduism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, or Atheism. Any version that includes any of those should be reverted on sight as disruptive of WP. --goethean ॐ 22:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't count as OR, but in 1995 the Observer newspaper in the UK ran an article "The A-Z of cults" which was subsequently described by the editor as "tongue-in-cheek". The Observer articles are no longer on line, but text files are currently available . Included here you will find Zoroastrianism, Mormonism and more. Jeffrey Hadden's list started as student projects from around 1996 onwards (see ). I suspect the list includes Zoroastrianism for the same reason as the Observer did (desperation!). In any case, taking a view on student projects, I'm sure the Hadden list cannot be viewed as definitive by any means. John Campbell 17:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hadden's list intentionally included any religion whose offshoots could become an NRM, in other words anything. In fact in many places it just calls itself "religious movements" page and that it was originally meant to be a site about NRMs was something I didn't know until I came here.--T. Anthony 08:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition of New Religious Movement

We could simply use the one in WP:

A new religious movement or NRM appears as a religious, ethical or spiritual grouping that has not (yet) become recognised as a standard denomination, church, or body, especially when it has a novel belief system and when it is not a sect.

... and then adding a sensible time-span such as since the nineteen century".

There is an interesting discussion here: Category_talk:New_religious_movements, that can save us a lot of re-hashing the same arguments again. --ZappaZ 20:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

the time frame since the 19th century is completely arbitrary and quite unusual. Andries 21:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

An interesting article about the definitions of NRM @ Pratt University's website: Online Resource Guide in Social Sciences --ZappaZ 22:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

... and of course, Chryssides' NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS - SOME PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION --ZappaZ 23:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that article (though Chryssides is wrong in his assertion that academics do not use the word cults). I have to refine my statement made above. The time span since the nineteen century is quite arbitrary, but Barrett/Barker's time span of after the WWII is self-admitted arbitrary. Andries 05:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we add a sign for the NRMs that do not fulfill the Barker and Barrett definition (post WWII), but fulfills the post 1850s definition e.g "after 1850s". That would solve the problem. Andries 16:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

That would be too much work, why don't we start from 1900 and onwards? Any objections? --ZappaZ 21:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

yes, where are the scholary references for this arbitrary year? Andries 21:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think it is at least an improvement if we start from 1900, as long as pre-WWII movements are clearly marked as such and as long as in the intro is stated that pre-WWII is not a generally accepted definition. Andries 07:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Let's start now checking one by one, deleting whatever does not fit. We also need a new intro. --ZappaZ 15:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS ??? Who included them in the list ? By all means, it is NOT a religious movement ! It DOES refer to God as a way to help the ones who attend the meetings, but believing in God is "just" an extra tool to help you find your life back ! There is no question of cult, or services, or life after death, or what God thinks/says/demands/plans etc. And many ATHEISTS join the meetings ! For them it is really nothing but a mental exercise, to help them put some pressure off their shoulders. Maybe the meetings in the US are only held in churches (or their basement), but it is NOT the case in other countries. They just take whatever room is given to them, at a reasonable rent ! I did not take it off the list before asking for explanations, but I think it should be done !! Govinda

While I appreciate the scholarly intent of NRM is to create an alternative to the inherently perjorative term "cult", IMHO NRM is intrinsically flawed as defined. Who is The Authority to "recognize" / bless / sanction a NRM into a non-NRM? Aside from definition the list's inclusions seem very US if not European biased. SC 02:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Please add your comments at the bottom of a section. Thanks. Read the criteria for inclusion: This List of new religious movements lists groups that appears as a religious, ethical or spiritual grouping that have not yet become recognised as a standard denomination, church, or body. New Religious Movements are interesting because of their potential and the window they give into how religions form or evolve. New Religions have the potential to become mainstream or to self-destruct. In either case it helps the understanding of the psychology of religion.. You are welcome to edit and make this article better. --ZappaZ

The current criteria include: which are not recognized as standard denominations, churches, or religious bodies. How exactly do we determine what is a 'standard' denomination, church or religious body? Quite a few of the churches or groups listed in the article are recognised by their peers -- 'in communion with', as one might say in a purely Christian context. Either the list itself needs drastic pruning, or the preamble needs changing to reflect what is actually listed here. Ben Cruachan 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the preamble a bit and took out a few things which were questionable. The list still might be a bit OR, now that I understand Misplaced Pages better, but should be a bit better.--T. Anthony 10:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous Ground

I just got wind of this "list" today. It is treading on dangerous ground. Many of listings are not religious movements, some pre-date 1920, and some would find it terribly offensive to be listed aside organizations that are views as cults or sects, and rightly so. This list also presumes that the world revolves around the United States and that these religion's legitmacy is marked by their recognition by American law or wide acceptance by American citizens, both of which are egocentric positions.

Exactly what is the purpose of this list? And who is its main viewer?

Needless to say I made several minor edits.

Factual accuracy dispute

I gave the article an accuracy dispute because I found some pre-1900 (jehovah's witnesses, Shirdi Sai Baba) entries and there may be more. Each entry on the list has to be checked. Andries 07:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If there are these that do not fit the critera, please remove them. Thanks. --ZappaZ 03:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)ere

There exists also a definition that NMRs are everything founded later than Sikhism, the youngest world religion (ref. German Misplaced Pages and the ref. there (Georg Schmid... Swiss professor or religious science) --Irmgard 11:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Would "founded later than Sikhism" mean after Guru Nanak founded the faith or after the Guru Granth Sahib of 1708? Also would it still be NMR, using this definition, if it's just an offshoot of another religion? For example the Methodists were formed in the 1780s, which is after the Guru Granth Sahib. Yet when it was formed it was not "new" the way Sikhism was during the life of Guru Nanak. Does that make sense?

Also some these days would state that Bahai does now count as the youngest world religion. It's on every continent and has over seven million members. That would put every faith founded after 1863 as a new religion. Which would include the Salvation Army, Church of the Nazarene, and the United Church of Christ. That seems a bit odd too, but a bit more workable perhaps. Although in the case of the UCC it's really a merger of much older churches so wouldn't count--T. Anthony 23:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I took some out and I'll try to justify why here. The United Methodists are just a new organization of Methodists. Methodists date back to the 1700s. The Church of the Nazarene is newer than Bahai, but it is ultimately over a hundred and also a stricter variant of Methodists.(Being newer than Sikhism is at best useful if it's a clear break with any previous religion. All Methodism would be newer than Sikhism, but few would deem them an NRM) The Pentecostals are about as old as Bahai. The Seventh Day Adventists originate in the 1850s I think. The Mormons are equally old so if they're still up there maybe someone else can handle that. Garvey's group did actually have religious overtones, which influenced Rastafarianism, but it's disputed enough I took it off. Finally Christianity has been in Japan since the sixteenth century and it's been allowed openly since the 1870s I think. Unless a specific Japanese Christian NRM is meant it seemed confusing and the link didn't lead anywhere anyway.--T. Anthony 08:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It's improved since I first saw it, but it's still a tad odd in some areas. There are several noted New Religious Movements which I think are absent. The Kimbanguists for example are very significant in number and probably could count as new. Added to that Swedenborgianism is on the list. Although it may not be mainstream the Swedenborgians have been organized as a religion in the US since 1817 or so and even earlier in Britain. Helen Keller and Johnny Appleseed were members. --T. Anthony 13:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking them up further they had a university in the US in 1850. One of them was in Congress in the 1850s. Frank Lloyd Wright designed one of their churches. They sound a mite odd, but not exactly new or all that unmainstream.--T. Anthony 13:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Another note "Snake Handlers" isn't that one groups real name. They are called Church of God with Signs Following.--T. Anthony 13:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition again - not only time line

George Chryssides sees three factors defining new religious movements

• time range - he takes 150 years, remarking that the time range varies a lot
• new movements - which he defines as not being part of any existing religion, either due to their own claims that they are separate from XXX or "the only real XXX" or that their claimed identity is disputed by the respective mainstream religion (Scientology, LDS or Christian Science would be NMRs by this definition - Opus Dei, Methodists and most Charismatic churches not)
• religious - by which he excludes movements like TM or est etc. --Irmgard 19:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed some groups which are not "new" because they are an accepted part of a bigger church or direction (Opus Dei is fully recognized as Catholic by the Catholic Church, Promise Keepers, Assemblies of God and Willow Creek etc. are generally seen as Evangelical by mainstream conservative Evangelical Christianity). --Irmgard 19:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

But aren't they new "movements"? Pentecostalism is explicitly labelled as a movement in its article. -Willmcw 20:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

There are developments which do not result in one single separate church or organization but in several or many organizationally independent groups and/or similar groups within established churches which are loosely connected by some common ideas - and the designation of that is a movement. There is a conservative Evangelical movement within Methodist and Presbyterian mainstream churches, a missionary Evangelical movement which includes Billy Graham, Willow Creek and Campus Crusade, and there is a Charismatic/Pentecostal movement. In all of these cases, the result is not a new" type of church separate from all others. Members of these movements exist within established churches and in independent churches and while not denying their church adherence they feel as well in agreement with members of the movement which belong to other churches, see them as Christian brothers and sisters and share prayer and worship with them (without asking much how theologically correct that is in the view of their church superiors). These cross-church movements do not have a distinct novel belief system and they are no distinct organizations separate from existing churches, and neither are they uniformely rejected by established churches (by some people or parties within established churches, yes - but that's also true for, e.g., liberal theology). Such movements are, in my view, not "New religious movements" - they don't fit the definition of the first para.

On the other hand, there are distinct groups within established religion which are generally accepted as part of that established religion (no one says Opus Dei is not Catholic or Willow Creek is not Evangelical). Those groups are IMO not "New religious movements" - they also don't fit the definition of the first para.

Then there are groups which do see themselves as distinctly separated from all existing churches or as the "only real XXX church" - these are "new" religious movements (even though they often claim old historical roots) - a historical example would be the Reformation churches.

And lastly there are groups which claim to be part of an established religion and are not recognized by that established religion - these also count as new per definition of the first para. --Irmgard 14:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

On one side, there are many "movements" within established churches which see themselves as part of that church and are also accepted as such by the church. There are charismatic movements (great part of that within the Catholic church), conservative Evangelical movements within mainstream Evangelical churches, inclusive movements, etc.

We are not using Chryssides' defintion, but Barker's and Barret's. Reverted. --ZappaZ 22:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, it is not true that we are only using Barrett's and Barker's definition, after all we included pre-WWII movements because of your insistence on this. I think some of Irmgard's removals are justified because she removed some sects. Andries 22:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Opus Dei can be counted because it's a religious order not a religious movement. If we're going to count any new Catholic or other religious order we should also count The Focolare Movement and Taize Community. In fact those two might fit better as both are movements more than religious orders. Added to that the article on Pentacostalism states that the idea of a Pentecostal movement dates from 1867 and the Church of God (Cleveland) is a Pentecostal denomination from the 1880s. I am willing to count everything after Bahai as a "new religious movement" but ideally I think a denomination more than a 100 years old should only count if it is totally disconnected to any major religion.

Opus Dei and Focolare are an officially recognized groups within the Catholic Church - they are definitely not separate new movements. --Irmgard 14:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Similar on the Evangelical side Willows Creek, International Moody Bible Institute, Promise Keepers. Vineyard Movement, Foursquare Gospel, Calvary Chapel, Christian Reformed Church in North America, Christian and Missionary Alliance are Christian denominations. All of them are somewhat ecumenically connected, either to Evangelical Alliance or to some other cross-denominiational organization and do not fit the first para definition. --Irmgard 14:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Irmgard I kind of agree. I think I took Pentecostalism off before you did. I'd be fine with removing Moody, Promise Keepers, Opus Dei, Christian Reformed Church in North America, and a couple others. However if I do I know they'll just be put back by tomorrow. Still I'll be so bold as to remove a couple of those.--T. Anthony 03:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That said I didn't remove anything this time as there is debate on these issues. I did edit some naming conventions to allow for the links to work.--T. Anthony 02:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay now I have removed something, the "Watchtower..." entry. That name was an earlier name for the Jehovah's Witnesses. If someone wishes the JWs to be on the list that's a different matter, but they aren't on it at present.--T. Anthony 03:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I took Konkokyo off the list for now as they were established in 1859 and recognized by the Japanese government in 1900. I know Wiki lists them as an NRM though so I'll ask my sister--T. Anthony 03:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC).--T. Anthony 03:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, The Purpose is What?

I said in my last entry, this list is dangerous. What is it's purpose? It couldn't possibly exist to define "new religious movements" as its strewn with errors. Since I edited it, many more have occurred and even more are left to be made.

The reality is that this is Christian focused document. Its only really useful purpose is to define religions or non-similiar gatherings outside of itself. In fact, even it's title is subterfuge, as it betrays its true intent - to find a way to define certain movements,congregations or otherwise as cults. This is something that Christians and secularists seem to be too eager to do and an activity that has no real benefit other than dividing people.

For example, its completely inappropriate to list any type, sect or version of Hinduism on a list with Satanism. Even if you don't agree, both Satanists and Hindi would agree. You even list MOVE, which had no religious philosophy at all, outside of the general ethics followed by their predecessors in the earlier 60s and 70s social movements. This is list that is burdened with euro/western/christian assumptions. It is predicated on opinion and more importantly only ONE opinion, which conveniently is one that would not be viewed as a "new" religious movement or as a cult, which means it one people defining another. A task which usually results in falsehoods, sterotypes and oppressive recordkeeping.

Many of these so-call "new" religious movements are actually offshoots of religions that are much older than all western religions. So while they are younger manifestations, they may not really be new at all, or at least no newer than say certain segments of the Christian community or sects of Islam.

Not only am I concerned about the accuracy of the list, I want to understand why it needs to exist. Who would use it? and to what end? And what body of information does it provide the user that can not be found elsewhere that is both unbiased and respectful?

There you go, please illuminate me. Does everyone consider this to be an unbiased document?

There has been bias, old Eastern religions have received few calls to have them removed, but if you'll look at my edits in least I'm trying to remove Eastern religions that were founded well before 1900. I took Konkokyo off even though on Wiki's "Konkokyo" page they call it an NRM. I took off...well I can't remember its name right now but it was an Indian religion dating back to the 1500s. There is a sense that calling something an NRM is perjorative, but I do think it's interesting to know what religions are comparatively recent. Some might see a religion being newer as a potential good even. Anyway your complaint is noted and I will look harder for any non-Western religion that's been unfairly called "new."--T. Anthony 11:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay I did my best to remove names whose Wiki links just say were "Hindu thinkers" rather than founders of any new religion. I also put Unity Christianity back. I hope that in least gets rid of some bias. If the group agrees I'd be for taking Vedanta and the Native American Church off. I am Catholic BTW, but I think this can have a purpose without unduly upsetting non-Western peoples. Still many New Religions are from non-Western cultures so many should stay on this list.--T. Anthony 12:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I changed the opener to be gentler. Now as for why I like lists like this, well some of why I put in the opener. However the other reason is I read and sometimes write science fiction. Maybe the future won't be full of Sokka Gakai temples, but still who knows? In least it'd throw a window on the possibility that even the religious map of the West is going to change alot in the coming decades. Hinduism is one of the fastest growing faiths in America so having a list that has some new Hindu groups growing in the US is useful for credible SF writings and researchers. (I'm not a credible SF writer) Hope that answered some--T. Anthony 12:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What is new? or Western bias

SC Witch stated: While I appreciate the scholarly intent of NRM is to create an alternative to the inherently perjorative term "cult", IMHO NRM is intrinsically flawed as defined. Who is The Authority to "recognize" / bless / sanction a NRM into a non-NRM? Aside from definition the list's inclusions seem very US if not European biased.

I may different from the others here, I'm newer to this than many, but personally I would think it stops being new when it's not new anymore. Either because its beliefs are no longer seen as all that novel or it's been around long enough it's not new. As no one currently alive is confirmed to have been born before 1890 I would think anything founded before 1890 could only be "new" if it has broken from any previous religion. For example Antoinism was founded by a man born in the 1840s, but it is based on a system fairly separate from any of the religious cultures of France. So much so that many parts of Misplaced Pages are listing it, apparently inaccurately, as an African religion. Thus making its beliefs "newer" than its chronological date would imply. Still even it's not from before 1890 and I don't think I'd be comfortable adding anything before that date.

Now as for the US/EU bias I have been trying to correct that. I took off several Eastern movements that weren't really new, even by the definition involving Sikhism's founding, or that aren't really religions. I've also tried to add some groups from Brazil that really are new, sometimes from after 1970 even. I'm not convinced my efforts are approved of or even entirely working out so far, but it's a start. Could you explain more clearly though what you mean by a US/EU bias?--T. Anthony 06:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay "Jesus Army" and "Jesus Fellowship Church" are apparently the same thing so I cut out one of the repeated entries. I might put a note though listing it's other name.--T. Anthony 06:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Musings

I was wondering on something, likely because of sleeplessness. The dates 1900 and 1945 are placed as significant to this in a way, but nothing after 1945 is. That maybe makes sense, but it seems to me the collapse of the Soviet Union and related factors maybe was significant to the history of religion and new religion. The listing of Universe people got me thinking on that some as well. I'm not suggesting we should mention if the group was founder after 1993 (the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia and the Unified Team last played in 1992) but in the case of Eastern European groups would it be a good or bad thing if we did? Thoughts.--T. Anthony 13:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point, but I don't know how if this should be put in this article or in the article new religious movement, or in a separate article e.g. New religious movements in post communist societies. I think Barker has written about this. Russia has restrictions against foreign groups. There are quite a few NRMs in those countries who have like the Universe people some entertainment value for outsiders like myself. Other are more tragic. For example, I read that several of the organizers of the Mothers of Beslan committee had become a member of a cult that claims can re-surrect their children. Andries 18:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That is sad. I was just blue-skying that one day weeks ago.--T. Anthony 01:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Hi, I am suggesting merging the content of List of cults, but keeping the criteria and format of this article. Essentially, List of cults has developed POV problems, which have been avoided in this article. 80.189.75.153 18:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a problem which needs to be fixed, or that this proposed solution would improve either article. -Will Beback 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean List of groups referred to as cults? There is a big difference in meaning. If people are treating the article like it's a list of cults (which is not something Misplaced Pages can make, since "cult" is essentially pejorative in common usage), that's probably your POV problem right there. I do think that the phenomenon of labeling certain groups as "cults" is real and the list of groups so labelled is distinct from the list of new religious movements, though the two often overlap. - AdelaMae 01:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the problem, but I did a great deal of work on this list awhile back and I'd prefer it not be junked up. Added to that the purported cult list includes several faiths which are not really NRMs. Either because they're too old like Exclusive Brethren or because they're not a religious movement as in examples LaRouche Movement or Objectivist movement. The ones on that list that are NRMs are mostly already here.--T. Anthony 15:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, in the absence of a consesus to merge, I have removed the tag. 80.189.229.1 18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I might add some NRMs that are on the cultlist to here though.--T. Anthony 01:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed that there's now a link on this article to an "alternate" list of new religious movements "based on different sources". What is going on with that? We shouldn't have two different lists of the same thing. - AdelaMae 06:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a standalone list - it's a section of List of religions. That list endeavors to be comprehenisve, so it should include mostly the same material. Since it's comprehensive, that entire list includes NRMs, near-NRMs, quasi-NRMs, and other groups that might not qualify here. But I don't know why the sources should be different. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"cults" (in the narrow sense, as opposed to the sense of cultus)) are clearly a subset of "religions" , just as "new religious movements" are a subset of "religion". list of religions is unmaintainable and should be reduced to a "list of lists". dab (𒁳) 17:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Spiritist

I'd like to query Spiritist being co-joined with Esoteric AND listed as a sub-category under Western.

I am wondering if a separate title for organizations based on mediumship and channelling, e.g. Brahma Kumaris, Ramtha etc ought to get their own. Whereas Ramtha is Western, the Brahma Kumaris are Eastern BUT see themselves as being non-Hindu. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This List Should Be Merged Back Into Misplaced Pages's "List Of Religions"

This list should be merged with the List of Religions as it was originally. It is clear that there is no definition of new religious movement on which to base this list that meets consensus even among experts. One is compelled to ask why this list was ever splintered from the List of Religions in the first place? It seems to do Misplaced Pages users a disservice in that it makes it unnecessarily confusing and difficult to find the information they are looking for. If Misplaced Pages users are looking for major established religions there is already the listing provided by World Religions. TR166ER (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the list of religions it seems clear that the entire section titled Neopaganism should be moved to this the list of new religious movements. In order to keep from confusing Misplaced Pages users I will effect this change while still preferring that the list of new religous movements be put back in with the list of religions. TR166ER (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Again though I belive that Misplaced Pages patrons were better served when this sub-list was part of a complete list of religions parody religions are more logically listed here because of their recent origins. TR166ER (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have argued at Talk:List of religions and spiritual traditions that I think a re-merge is not the right thing to do. But I am open to being convinced. Important, however, is that if a merge happens, it cannot possibly be (it seems to me) that every group currently listed in List of new religious movements would survive the merge. This may mean that a better approach is to allow List of religions and spiritual traditions to include the more important or larger categories and groups, with a pointer to this page, which can continue to be a comprehensive list. Tb (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would contend that a re-merge or a re-write is a sensible thing at this point. Any categorization other than alphabetic would be OR or POV. Groupsisxty (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist movements

Selection seems entirely arbitrary. Vipassana is part of Theravada, the oldest form of Buddhism. NKT is part of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. These do not fit the definition stated at the top. On the other hand, if you include all de facto new movements, then all Western(ized) forms should be included. Peter jackson (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove Tenrikyo

I will remove Tenrikyo today as it was founded in the 1800s and its founder died in, I think it was 1878. Clearly not young enough to be a NRM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.167.66 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing, I am Series premiere (remake) (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Again sorry, the date of death was 1887 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Series premiere (remake) (talk • contribs) 07:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientology

The new religious movement - The Church of Scientology - is not listed. Instead the body of knowledge, the study, - Scientology - is listed. I believe this is erroneous and misleading. Without any doubt The Church of Scientology fulfills all of the definitions of a new religious movement. On the other hand - Scientology - (which is a body of knowledge and can be found in certain books and recorded lectures), doesn't. On one hand the Church of Scientology which is most certainly a new religious movement is not listed. On the other hand - Scientology - which isn't a new religious movement by itself, is not listed. Terryeo 12:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm undecided on how we should handle this distinction. The Church of Scientology is a particular organization, but the Scientology movment includes the Free Zone, does it not? Most people think Scientology / Dianteics and the Church of Scientology are synonymous. This is virtually true, in that the RTC (the people pulling all the strings in the CoS) controls the very terminology and texts down to the letter through trademark and copyright monopoly. But it's like saying Christianity isn't a traditional religious movement, but the Catholic Church is - which incidentally also would exclude Orthodoxy and Protestantism, etc.. Moving forward, some NRMs are owned and controlled by a single entity, some are not, so to be clear in meaning for the sake of the list, I think we should keep it simple. Just too many problems if you split hairs like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is under supremacist religions due to the concept of "Homo Novis" or "New Man" as per the Dianetics Technical Dictionary; which also goes on to state that this is a new evolved race of man ie "supreme race" Groupsisxty (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is under "Space or Alien" religions, due to the OT III materials, as per the Court Records covering all of the topics. This is not OR. Groupsisxty (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

After some thought, I am not going to dispute further the Space category as Scientology is listed in the main UFO religion article and "space opera" certainly plays a part in Scientology. That is not central to Scientology or what it is "based on" but there is enough source on the topic to make arguing it an exercise that I will not pursue. Perhaps another will care to as it is indicative of a very incomplete and skewed view of what Scientology is. Same thing with talking about Scientology in the main UFO religion article. However I am holding the line on the "supremacist" bit as that topic is clearly talking about something else entirely. Scientology does not hold one race or type as above others but claims that all are equal and all can improve. So let's leave it as one in and one out for now. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

But it holds the race "Homo Novis" is superior, and it creates them, as sited in the reference. Groupsisxty (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no such race. Scientology maintains that everyone can reach a higher state - that is not "supremacist", just about every religion claims that; Hubbard just called it "Homo Novis" instead of "saved" or "enlightened" or "ascended" or whatever. ps I have a talk page but it is blocked against new or unregistered users for obvious reasons. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As cited in the reference, that race (Homo Novis) is an evolved, not enlightened, and therefore a racial group, given the context used in the definition provided by the Religious Technology Center (aka Church of Scientology), it is a race, not a state of being. This therefore makes it a racial issue. So unless another definition is provided, or some reference(Not RTC propaganda), it should stay. Another argument could be used in the case of the word "wog". (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

After additional research, the treatment for SP's (To include anyone not supporting Scientology and Homosexuals) should be "quietly disposed of, quietly and without sorrow" Since it particularly includes homosexuals and lesbians in this criteria, definitely supremacists; due to their inability to "evolve". So clearly, not everyone can evolve(as per the citation), "become enlightened", as per your opinion of the Church Doctrines. Groupsisxty (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

More reference, done by a second and third party on the subject:

• http://solitarytrees.net/racism/deny.htm
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Homosexuality_and_Scientology

Groupsisxty (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional citations supporting this:

"The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in Dynamic II such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc., and all down the catalog of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically... he is very far from culpable for his condition, but he is also far from normal and extremely dangerous to society..." - Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, pp. 122-123. Church of Scientology of California, 1978 edition. ISBN 0-88404-000-3

"Such people should be taken from the society as rapidly as possible and uniformly institutionalized; for here is the level of the contagion of immorality, and the destruction of ethics; here is the fodder which secret police organizations use for their filthy operations. One of the most effective measures of security that a nation threatened by war could take would be rounding up and placing in a cantonment, away from society, any 1.1 individual who might be connected with government, the military, or essential industry; since here are people who, regardless of any record of their family's loyalty, are potential traitors, the very mode of operation of their insanity being betrayal. In this level is the slime of society, the sex criminals, the political subversives, the people whose apparently rational activities are yet but the devious writhings of secret hate." - Hubbard, Science of Survival, pp. 88-90. Church of Scientology of California, 1975 edition. ISBN 0-88404-001-1

"The number of engrams in a Zulu would be astonishing. Moved out of his restimulative area and taught English he would escape the penalty of much of his reactive data; but in his native habitat the Zulu is only outside the bars of a madhouse because there are no madhouses provided by his tribe. It is a safe estimate, and one based on better experience than is generally available to those who have conclusions on 'modern man' by studying primitive races, that primitives are far more aberrated than civilized peoples. Their savageness, their unprogressiveness, their incidence of illness: all stem from their reactive patterns, not from their inherent personalities… The contagion of aberration, being much greater in a primitive tribe, and the falsity of the supersitious data in the engrams of such a tribe both lead to a conclusion which, observed on the scene, is carried out by actuality." - Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (1988 ed.), book 2, chapter 8, p. 183 - 'The Contagion of Aberration'

So, I'm not sure if this is OR, but it would seem that "Supremacist" is a good category according to RTC Writings (Which are doctrines of the Church of Scientology). Groupsisxty (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we do a partial protect on this section until it's ironed out? Groupsisxty (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Supremacist Religions

Template:RFCreli

Whether or not to include Scientology as a Supremacist Religion

• Oppose inclusion as a Supremacist Religion - Scientology already appears on the list and inclusion as "supremacist" is WP:OR based solely on a read of primary materials. Please see this AN/I topic for opinions on the RfC subject by other experienced editors. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Selected arguments against inclusion

• The Creed of the Church of Scientology:

  "We of the Church believe:
  
  That all men of whatever race, color, or creed were created with equal rights"

• The list clearly states what is meant by "supremacist"

  "New religious movements emphasizing racial or ethnic supremacism"

  It is not whether the members of the religion think they are "better" or "more favored in the eyes of God" or "enlightened" or "saved" or "ascended" or "Clear" or "OT" or "Homo Novis" - it is whether the religion preaches racial or ethnic supremacy. Scientology does not.
• And this is moot as it is WP:OR for us to "decide". Scientology is not categorized in WP:RS as supremacist. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You must've missed the Zulu people citation, or the Homo Sapien vs. Homo Novis one... Let's not clutter this with our opinion, and wait on another Adminstrator, or Wiki User --Groupsisxty (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't miss it. I understand it in the context of the book and the subject. All you have is an out-of-context cherry-picked line - no understanding. That is why we rely on secondary sources here, not our interpretation of primary sources. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you missed the interview with an ex-member (Who was an OT VIII), or the Fox News Reference. --Groupsisxty (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• For Inclusion as a Supremacist, as per the provided citations. One of the citations clearly states the Zulu race is subordinate to other races. There are also opinions of prior members of scientology (Which can be cited if needed) stating such. There are numerous citations which state one race or another is lesser than another, and also states homosexuals "should be done away with quietly, and without sorrow" (Citation can be provided).

"7.Being gay was not ever my choice or intention but it is not something that Scientology will ever "handle" however much one spends (I spent close to a half million dollars in Scientology, and I still want my money back!). Scioentology considers being gay as an "aberration" that needs to be erased. However, they don't erase it and are in actual practice anti-gay (as I and others got sent to "ethics" correction for such behavior). They did, however, accept hundreds of thousands of "Gay dollars" from me in full for a service they never delivered in full.Being gay may be something we don't understand yet but it exists in millions of people and, even when humans who misapply their own religious beliefs and spit hate out at gays, God loves me just the way I am. " - Michael Pattinson, http://exscn.net/content/view/75/101/

"The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in Dynamic II such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc., and all down the catalog of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically... he is very far from culpable for his condition, but he is also far from normal and extremely dangerous to society..." - Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, pp. 122-123. Church of Scientology of California, 1978 edition. ISBN 0-88404-000-3

"Such people should be taken from the society as rapidly as possible and uniformly institutionalized; for here is the level of the contagion of immorality, and the destruction of ethics; here is the fodder which secret police organizations use for their filthy operations. One of the most effective measures of security that a nation threatened by war could take would be rounding up and placing in a cantonment, away from society, any 1.1 individual who might be connected with government, the military, or essential industry; since here are people who, regardless of any record of their family's loyalty, are potential traitors, the very mode of operation of their insanity being betrayal. In this level is the slime of society, the sex criminals, the political subversives, the people whose apparently rational activities are yet but the devious writhings of secret hate." - Hubbard, Science of Survival, pp. 88-90. Church of Scientology of California, 1975 edition. ISBN 0-88404-001-1

"The number of engrams in a Zulu would be astonishing. Moved out of his restimulative area and taught English he would escape the penalty of much of his reactive data; but in his native habitat the Zulu is only outside the bars of a madhouse because there are no madhouses provided by his tribe. It is a safe estimate, and one based on better experience than is generally available to those who have conclusions on 'modern man' by studying primitive races, that primitives are far more aberrated than civilized peoples. Their savageness, their unprogressiveness, their incidence of illness: all stem from their reactive patterns, not from their inherent personalities… The contagion of aberration, being much greater in a primitive tribe, and the falsity of the supersitious data in the engrams of such a tribe both lead to a conclusion which, observed on the scene, is carried out by actuality." - Dianetics:Modern Science of Mental Health, L. Ron Hubbard, Church of Scientology of California, ISBN 0-88404-000-3 (1988 ed.), book 2, chapter 8, p. 183 - 'The Contagion of Aberration'

• If Scientology could not be included as Supremacist then Westboro Baptist needs to be removed, since it does not state any treatments of other races.

• It should also be noted, that any classifaction of religions would be WP:OR, and therefore the list should be re-merged to the list of religions article.

Groupsisxty (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Secondary source: "A Scientologist who’s ‘clear’ believes he’s no longer a Homosapien. He’s Homo-novis, a new race. They believe they are the only hope for this section of the galaxy, starting with planet Earth." Fox News Shii (tock) 02:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and? A Christian thinks they are "saved" and that acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal savior is the only hope. Does that make Christianity a "supremacist" religion? --Justallofthem (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a "belief vs. scientific fact" as per the book: L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, pp. 122-123. Church of Scientology of California, 1978 edition. ISBN 0-88404-000-3. Again, let's wait on another Admin or Wiki Users to weigh in on it. --Groupsisxty (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Another piece of information to be thrown into the mix when deciding whether to classify Scientology as "supremacist": in Science of Survival (a highly significant text in the development of Scientology), Hubbard clearly states that no healthy society can afford to recognize the civil rights of people low enough on the 'tone scale' (which includes homosexuals). The high-toned may therefore quarantine or 'cure' the low-toned, or even exterminate them, as the notorious "quietly and without sorrow" text has it:

"The only answers would seem to be the permanent quarantine of such persons from society to avoid the contagion of their insanities and the general turbulence which they bring into any order, thus forcing it lower on the scale, or processing such person until they have attained a level on the tone scale which gives them value.

In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints" (130).

"The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line - a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred - or simply quarantining them from the society. A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country." (156) --Ddqsdnlj (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also, would it be helpful to have statements from European governments who are concerned about passages like these as indicating that Scientology is incompatible with a democratic society that respects human rights? I'm not sure what the working criteria are for being "supremacist". --Ddqsdnlj (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For evidence of supremacist beliefs in scientology, see Tone scale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc abian (talk • contribs) 11:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Admins PLEASE READ- just to point out that justallofthem aka justanother is the same guy who undid the article on Scientologist Noelle North and caused it to be deleted. The 'Subway' incident has video evidence to back it up and should have been allowed to stand. Back to my point, he has now been the cause of TWO major incidents, undone edits left right and centre, so WHY has this man not been banned? He is obviously pro-Scientology to the point where he is not willing to accept the inclusion of anything which makes CoS look bad. I thought Misplaced Pages was supposed to be objective? People like this user are bad for Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.241.81 (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Because of its experiences during the Nazi regime, Germany has a special responsibility to monitor the development of any extreme group within its borders -- even when the group's members are small in number. Given the indisputable evidence that the Scientology organization has repeatedly attempted to interfere with the American government and has harmed individuals within Germany, the German federal government has responded in a very measured legal fashion to the Scientology organization. On June 6, 1997, Federal and State Ministers of the Interior asked the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz) to formally investigate several activities of the Scientology organization and make a report. The published report presented October 12, 1998, found that while "the Scientology organization agenda and activities are marked by objectives that are fundamentally and permanently directed at abolishing the free democratic basic order," additional time is needed to conclusively evaluate the Scientology organization. The ministers approved this request for more time." - http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/germany/germany21.html, Para. 9 - Groupsisxty (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://solitarytrees.net/racism/deny.htm - Multiple citations from here can be used from this tertiary source to support inclusion in this section. - Groupsisxty (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that scientology is a supremacist group. I don't agree that it is a religion. However, we would need a secondary source to state that it is supremacist to classify it as such in a Misplaced Pages article. I do not see a citation of a reliable secondary source.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day, there is now MORE THAN ENOUGH to warrant CoS inclusion as 'supremacist', nit-picking aside. For the record, I don't count Scientology as a religion either, they are a dangerous money-grabbing cult, But if they are to be classified as a religion, then the two categories in dispute are the most appropriate. justallofthem shifted his focus from getting rid of it from both categories to just supremacist because the 'alien-based' argument can be laughed off/denied by Scientology, supremacist can't and is more damaging. If Misplaced Pages makes this stand and puts CoS up as supremacist, it is going to be seen by a hell of a lot of people, CoS know this and it scares them. God forbid people might learn the truth! What about all the photos of CoS dressing up as Nazis, harrassing jews etc? And speaking of Nazis, germany has classified CoS a cult and is fully aware of their supremacist views, and let's face it if anyone should know about supremacist groups it's Germany! This is now getting beyond a joke. We have provided more than enough material to support our claims; justall of them has literally done nothing except whine, edit, undo edits, remove sources, etc etc. Misplaced Pages you need to end this, and do the right thing. Let the classifications stand, BAN this Scilon and MAKE SURE that no others try this kind of thing again!

• Tin.Foil.Hat. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• "As the student aspires to be HPA (Hubbard Professional Auditor) it is impressed on him that he is now a superior type of person who is leaving behind mundane considerations which preoccupy the despised homo sapiens. Advancement and success are dependent on the complete acceptance of scientology theory. Before commencing the professional courses (i.e., above HAS) one necessary qualification is "Complete subjective and objective reality on the entire scope of the Science of Scientology." This involves accepting without question or reservation-or what is called "cogniting" upon-not only those items of scientology theory mentioned in this Report but much similar additional material." - Anderson Report,Ch. 12, pg 83 http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/ar12.html

• "THE THIRD DYNAMIC is the urge toward existence in groups of individuals. Any group or part of an entire class could be considered to be a part of the Third Dynamic. The school, the society, the town, the nation are each part of the Third Dynamic, and each one is a Third Dynamic. This can be called the group dynamic.

THE FOURTH DYNAMIC is the urge toward mankind whereas the white race would be considered a Third Dynamic. All the races would be considered the Fourth Dynamic. This can be called the mankind dynamic." - Anderson Report, Ch. 11, pg 66 http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/ar11.html Groupsisxty (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion unless a reliable secondary source is produced which describes Scientology as "supremacist". Efforts so far to demonstrate that Scientology is supremacist all seem to constitute synthesis based on primary sources. Click the links if you're not sure what those terms mean in the context of Misplaced Pages. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Justanother (talk · contribs) argues that because the current letter of the section specifies racial or ethnic supremacism, supremacism in any of its other faces must be studiously ignored. If we encountered a sect whose doctrines advocated that a particular racial or ethnic group be "abruptly deleted" for the good of the world; recommended that members of said racial or ethnic group be "disposed of, quietly and without sorrow", I don't think anyone would reasonably hesitate even for a minute to classify that group as supremacist. No one would demand a reference, just as apparently no one ever has demanded a reference for the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, Kingdom Identity Ministries, Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, LaPorte Church of Christ, Nation of Yahweh, Esoteric Hitlerism, Nuwaubianism, Nation of Islam, World Church of the Creator, or Westboro Baptist Church; when it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's not "reliance on primary sources" to put it in a list of ducks. But Justanother is trying to insist that because the particular pseudoscientific gobbledygook on which his sect bases its beliefs that they are a species superior to homo sapiens, and that they can infallibly determine which groups should be "disposed of" for the good of humanity, is not racial pseudoscientific gobbledygook, that it's therefore not supremacism. I think the far more obvious conclusion is that the "racial or ethnic" qualifier should be dropped, since it places such artificial limits on supremacism. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually "Justanother" has not argued anything here in almost one year. I do not know why you are referencing my old and dormant account that I clearly identify with. No matter, the only real and salient point to be made is that there is no reliable secondary source that considers Scientology abhorrently "supremacist" because Scientology is not supremacist any more than the US Marines or the Catholic Church or MIT are "supremacist". In other words, your cherry-picked L. Ron Hubbard throwaway lines notwithstanding, Scientologists may believe that they are more able beings by virtue of their application of Scientology but so what? Does that make your corner gym "supremacist" too? I will help you out - it does not (not unless it bars ethnic or racial groups - which Scientology does not) and this entire exercise is an exercise in WP:OR. Truth be told, those categories should probably come out as they have changed a simple list of groups to another battleground for the ant-religionists and the anti-cultists. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The US Marines don't tell anyone "Hey, we are so superior to everyone else on Earth that we're capable of picking out 2.5% of the population that should be disposed of for the good of all." Neither do the Catholic Church or MIT. Your continuing attempt to cling to a false premise that only racial and ethnic supremacism are "real" supremacism notwithstanding, your attempts to paint L. Ron Hubbard's call for genocide as "throwaway lines" that were "cherry-picked" is spurious; this was L. Ron Hubbard setting down doctrine for his followers and neither before nor after did doctrine deviate from that message of "you are now a superior kind of being who is entitled to pass judgment upon the 'wogs' who are your inferiors." -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No, my argument is not spurious and I am happy to see that at least one critic understands that point at least (see below). What Scientology is and how it is practiced and what it is trying to achieve and how it goes about it (or at least what would be considered "Standard" - I cannot speak for violations of Scientology by anyone) are all contained in, and only contained in, the Bulletins and Policy Letters that form the woof and warp of the Church of Scientology. The critics' love of finding stray lines in Hubbard's writings and recorded lectures that are neither part of that fabric nor exemplified in the way Scientology is practiced is disingenuous at best. But all too common. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Your argument is not only spurious, it's part of the classic double standard that every Scientologist seems to be trained to employ. If someone criticizes Scientology the knee-jerk response of the Scientologist is "you don't know anything about Scientology; you've obviously never even read a Scientology book!" But then when the critic does read Scientology books and presents the Scientologist with evidence in black and white of the grandiosity, paranoia, intolerance and dishonesty that Hubbard built into Scientology, the Scientologist quickly invents some reason why that Scientology book 'doesn't count'. Science of Survival was Hubbard's followup to DMSMH; to pretend that it does not represent what Hubbard intended Scientology to be is just intellectually dishonest. -- or are you going to pretend that Dianetics too has nothing to do with Scientology and that every single line in it is merely a "stray line" which must be ignored, no matter how slavishly Scientologists follow it? The Church of Scientology told the IRS that "the research, writings, and recorded lectures of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard ... collectively constitute the Scriptures of " and it continues to make this claim today; your claim that this is not true and that anything which is not a Bulletin or a Policy Letter can be conveniently ignored (no matter how damning it is) appears to be at best original research and at worst just a blatant lie. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
        • We are getting more and more afield here. If you wish to continue this line of discussion please copy your post to my talk page. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
          • The discussion of whether what the Church of Scientology itself calls the Scriptures of Scientology include clearly supremacist declarations is hardly "afield". If any "new religious movement" stated outright in its second book-length text that all white people should be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow" for the good of the rest of the world, no one would be ridiculous enough to claim that movement wasn't supremacist. Yet here you are, trying to offer absurd objections such as "it isn't racial supremacism, so it isn't supremacism!" and "it's not part of one specific sub-category of administrative declarations by the movement's founder, so it must be a 'throw away line' instead!" -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Discussion of how to interpret primary materials is basically discussion of WP:OR and not really a proper use of article talk page. Not to mention the somewhat personal tone of your previous post. I don't care about that but again, not talk page material. I will not defend myself nor continue the OR aspects of this discussion here; it is misuse of the page. Please see WP:TALK. An example of proper use of this page would be if you forwarded a secondary source and we discussed if that secondary source met the standard here and how to accurately convey what the secondary source said. That is not what is happening hence my invitation to move the discussion to a less formal location. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Well, except for the fact that Misplaced Pages does not say "Never use primary sources!" It says that primary sources must be used with care, because often it takes specialist knowledge to interpret them correctly. Are you going to defend the absurd and meritless premise that it would take specialist knowledge to decide that our hypothetical "dispose of the white people for the good of the world" movement is "supremacist?" (And no, it is not "personal" about pointing out when your arguments are absurd and meritless.) -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment::This is a good point actually. I think the sections categorizing by anything other than Alphabetical should be deleted. Any opf the religions listed here in any position can be contended, using primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, all arguing a different POV. Ie. Technopagan isn't even a true religious philosophy, but rather a way of looking at Paganism. Westboro Baptist can not be declared supremancist using tertiary sources, or even secondary sources. It declares itself as such, much as Scientology does. Neo-Paganism should be merged with Wicca, since Wicca really is a form of Neo-Pagansim. The list can go on and on. So, in reality anything but an alpabetical list violates WP:OR, WP:NPOV, among other thing. There are no reliable secondary sources stating Occult Nazism is supremacist that I can find; Westboro Baptist' article is riddled with primary source materials being cited, etc. SO, in summary, maybe this whole article is in need of re-write to just be a alphabetical listing, excluding scientology as a whole, since numerous judgments have ruled it not to be a religion. Taking this into context, listing Scientology as a religion is considered a rather US Centric Opinion, violating NPOV Groupsisxty (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note - I have removed the disputed inclusion pending the outcome of this RfC. Please do not reinsert disputed material. Further, numerous experienced Wikipedians have already weighed in here and on WP:ANI re the unacceptable OR nature of the inclusion and one admin went so far as to warn that blocks may be issued for "repeated addition of such material". So chill please and let the RfC run its course. Cheers. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• NOTE - I have removed the entire Supremacist section, due to the entire section being in violation of WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. I think discussion should now lean towards removing any categorizations, other than Alphabetic. Groupsisxty (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I support the removal of that category and I would go further and suggest that all the subcategories under 1.3 Western be removed and that 1.3 Western be simply merged back to the "Regional" section. I think that the mentioned subcategories are way too open to interpretation, OR, and POV issues in a manner that the other categories are not so subject. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: - Actually it would be best if every single entry on this list were backed up to at least one secondary source that satisfies WP:RS and WP:V. This page in general needs a lot of work with respect to sourcing all the unsourced entries (which is the majority of the list). Specifically in this case, and in general, POV interpretations from primary sources should be avoided. As far as this particular RfC, I echo the statement made above by SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment To simplify this, due to the amount of materials that could point either way with a lot of them, maybe this should be reduced to an alphabetics list of NRM, since at least we have a RS defining NEW.Groupsisxty (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed scientology from the list, due it being a US centric view of it being a religion, only having recognition in the US and a couple of other countries. Specifically has been ruled to not be a religion in the majority of countries is has presented it's case. With a case as large as this, it's a very likely candidate to be moved from religion to pseudo sciences. Groupsisxty (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Scientology as a state-recognized religion and please stop the POV-pushing. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, according that that article, France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Russia, Switzerland, etc say it isn't whereas as only 6 or so are cited a a religion, hence my stance as it being a largely US Centric viewpoint. Groupsisxty (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have to to re-present this citation, as it may have been lost in the mix. This is a reliable, second party source, which states in my opinion, the definite inclusion as scientology being a racists religion.

"As the student aspires to be HPA (Hubbard Professional Auditor) it is impressed on him that he is now a superior type of person who is leaving behind mundane considerations which preoccupy the despised homo sapiens'. Advancement and success are dependent on the complete acceptance of scientology theory. Before commencing the professional courses (i.e., above HAS) one necessary qualification is "Complete subjective and objective reality on the entire scope of the Science of Scientology." This involves accepting without question or reservation-or what is called "cogniting" upon-not only those items of scientology theory mentioned in this Report but much similar additional material." - Anderson Report,Ch. 12, pg 83 http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/ar12.html unless we go the road of migrating Scientology into the Psuedoscience arena, rather than religion (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment in support of inclusion. We have here an academic report; a government (of Germany) report, and law; the words of a former member of the CoS, and a MSM news report (though from FOX). Taken together, I think the burden of secondary sources has been met, I note that Justall has not sought to explain why such sources have no merit, but to argue over and over that we don't understand the CoS or that it's all OR/SYNTH/PRIMARYSOURCES violations. It isn't. There is a second issue as to whether or not to include the entire sublist 'supremacist religions' or any sublists at all. That should be decided AFTER this, at a later time, in a separate RfC. This is not the place to conflate the two arguments. ThuranX (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made a number of arguments against inclusion other than the basic one that this is OR. Please see my "selected arguments for inclusion". I just read again the so-called secondary sources that you reference and fail to see how any of them argue that Scientology is a "supremacist" religion, i.e. "an academic report" - since when is some biased website an "academic report" worth of being used as a source here? Maybe I am not looking at the right thing but I see no published academic report that supports your claim; "a government (of Germany) report" - Germany considers Scientology anti-Democratic and a danger to its members. How do you get "supremacist" out of that? WP:OR, that is how; "the words of a former member of the CoS" - an ex-member says Scientology is anti-gay? How is that anecdote a reliable source and, again, what does that have to do with "supremacist"; "a MSM news report" - repeats what I have said over and over. Scientologists think that the application of Scientology brings about a higher state of ability. So what? That is a common claim made by many groups and is not what we are talking about when we say "supremacist". "Taken together" you say. Right, taken together and interpreted the way you please, you mean. The very definition of OR synthesis and based on questionable sources, no less. I suggest you take another look and apply a bit more rigor as an experienced Wikipedian. Cheers. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment in support of inclusion I agree with ThuranX on both accounts. It is hard to assume good faith when you see someone turning a blind eye to the natural weight of sources that otherwise would be acceptable, contorting them into differences of opinion instead of what they are - supportive evidence. If we wish to be balanced in our NPV, we should simply list it as "Supremacist" because it is considered by many as such, and include evidence (references) both for and against the label. Isn't that what WP is all about?

Additional agrument: The testimonies of ex-members of an alleged cult must NEVER be assumed discredible on grounds of so-called apostacy, on the real possibility that current members are not allowed or capable of self-criticism, and therefore may present an even more biased view than usual, potentially leaving ex-members as the only reasonably accurate inside source of information.

Note on consideration of Scientology statements and texts: Official proclaimations of an organization have weight, but are not conclusive, as they can be PR for its own sake. On the other hand, every utterance of someone like Hubbard who wrote endlessly his whole life may not consititute dogma and represent to overall tenor of the existing organization. That is why testimonials on what is actually practiced cannot be excluded from the discussion - and article. Venus Copernicus (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As you seem to addressing my remarks let me say that first, I never said we should discredit the testimony of an ex-member. I simply said it was anecdotal and not a reliable source for the purposes of this project. Which it is. As an aside, we do not know the full story there, just his side. I have seen other stories that paint a different picture. On the subject of being gay what would really carry weight is any policy that discriminates against gays in Scientology and that does just not exist. And repeating that Hubbard called being gay a sexual perversion is meaningless as that was the clinical norm in the time he wrote it (Richard von Krafft-Ebing. You do understand the valid point that Hubbard wrote and said a lot of things and some or many of those things have little bearing on what Scientology is or how it is practiced. What Scientology is and how it is practiced is covered in Hubbard's Technical Bulletins (HCOBs) and, to a lesser extent, in his Policy Letters (HCOPLs). Find me one of those that support your supremacist claim and we can talk (my guess is that all you can come up with is that he wrote a special rundown for African natives - which only means that he thought they had something different to address). As far as the rest of your comment; well, you have the usual accusation of bad faith on my part and the usual push for a WP:OR interpretation - and a not very good one at that. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... As you seem to be addressing something that would have bearing on what is "Source" and "Not Source". That is most definitley WP:OR, as the Church of Scientology states you can not change the doctrines that L. Ron Hubbard laid forth. To inlcude antiquated beliefs which were the norm of the time. And anything else is "Squirelling The Tech" (HCOPL HCO of 7 February 1965) so to speak. So, to counterpoint, anything in a policy letter (ie the Policy of the S. African Natives being inferior), or the book "Science of Survival" where is states Zulus are inferior are in fact Dogmatic to the Church of Scientology. Groupsisxty (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No further comment on your arguing with a 30-year Scientologist about what is or is not "squirreling" or what is or is not Scientology "doctrine". All you guys have is Hubbard saying "bad people are bad but Scientology can make them all good." That is not called "supremacism"; that is called "religion". This goes round and round but the simple simple point is that you do not have reliable secondary sources on the point. I say that is because it is not a valid point but no-one has to agree with me on that. All I need is the recognition that the sources are not out there. It does not matter how many internet critics of Scientology chime in here that Scientology is baaad. They need to read the quote on my talk page. Scientology is not baaad; people doing bad things in the name of Scientology are, well, if not bad then at least misguided. Kinda like Anonymous. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We also have Hubbard stating "Zulu's are insane" and "homosexuals are physically ill". And if Scientology prescribes people doing bad things (ie Fair Game, The doing away with of Undesirables) then it is bad. But being bad wasn't at issue. It being supremacists is. Groupsisxty (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But being bad wasn't at issue. Exactly. And they (we) are not "supremacists" in any manner that would be covered by that category of the list. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Except of course the denigration of S. Africans and the Zulu Nation, as well as homosexuals. Groupsisxty (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic (our personal and non-notable discussion of what Hubbard was talking about) but I already covered those just a couple posts above. Like I said, this goes round and round. I will not address those points again. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I re-added Scientology to list, since consensus showed a move towards it, and citing 4 secondary sources.Groupsisxty (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Previously uninvolved RFC comment. You must find a reliable source that describes them as such. This unflattering reading of primary sources is utterly verbooten by our policies. Cool Hand Luke 19:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Recap

Since Groupsisxty has decided to add the disputed material back in, let's recap the comments here:

Oppose inclusion

• Oppose inclusion --Justallofthem (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion unless a reliable secondary source is produced which describes Scientology as "supremacist". (I don't think we have satisfied that but I will check with the OP - Justallofthem) --SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many religions have history or founders that state unscientific views about race. Unless it is a mjor part of the belief, it is not a "Supremacist religion". Racial sterotyping is all over the bible! Without a RS stating it is supremacist, it must not be called so here.Yobmod (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per RFC comment immediately above. Cool Hand Luke 19:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as original research and trolling, considering the tone of off-site discussion by the editors. WillOakland (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless direct verbiage utilizing the term "Supremacist" in this context by WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources is provided. Cirt (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Support inclusion

• For Inclusion --Groupsisxty (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment in support of inclusion. --ThuranX (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment in support of inclusion. --Venus Copernicus (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• For Inclusion --Shiialso weighed in.Groupsisxty (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Acually he did not say the above (unless I missed it). He offered a reference but did not voice an opinion. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That is how I see it so far. Hardly consensus. Others have added information but not !voted and that is good as, given the off-wiki canvassing issue already discussed on WP:ANI, it would be best if new and unregistered editors did not attempt to vote-stack the debate. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed my comment from above - because I would prefer it if my comments were not used on talkpages in other locations without allowing me first the opportunity to comment on my own in a new subsection. Cirt (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• For Inclusion--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Supports inclusion It's fact, isn't that what Misplaced Pages keeps? 84.9.236.80 (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading into the sources a bit too much

- I removed Church of Scientology from the "Supremacist" subsection after taking a look at the cited sources. In my opinion there is a bit too much reading into these sources going on here. To essentially make the claim "Scientology is a Supremacist new religious movement" - (which I am not making here one way or the other, just speaking to an analysis of the sources) - to make that type of a claim, essentially it would be best to have at least 2 secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources saying "Scientology is X..." as opposed to individual Misplaced Pages users drawing inferences from sources. That is my take. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What we have here appears to be definitve proof that Misplaced Pages does not work. The 'for' outweighs the 'against', IMH 4 clearly secondary sources have been cited (from Wiki: Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims), and yet CoS is still not listed as supremacist. STILL no action has been taken against justallofthem for starting the edit war in the first place. And as a Misplaced Pages user I find the comment made by justallofthem ("given the off-wiki canvassing issue already discussed on WP:ANI, it would be best if new and unregistered editors did not attempt to vote-stack the debate") grossly offensive. Every Misplaced Pages user who comes across this article should be entitled to a say in this matter, and it is not justallofthem's place to decide this. The off-wiki canvassing which justallofthem mentioned has ceased (plus it was him who started the whole thing), and is irrelevant. justallofthem's argument suggests that any vote against his POV will definitely be down to fair play, when in fact they could just as easily be from people who have no connection with Anonymous. I used to hold Misplaced Pages in very high esteem, I often recommended it to others on a regular basis, however I am now rethinking that policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Moxon (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

IMPORTANT message to Wiki Admins: 'justallofthem' is most likely an "OSAbot". For those not familiar with the term, it means someone who is employed by the OSA to seek out anything in the media which reflects negatively on CoS and either alter or, if that is not possible, discredit it. It was supected by us that justallofthem was alerted to CoS' classification as 'UFO based' and 'supremacist' in this article due to him 'lurking' on the Enturbulation website and spotting a thread which mentioned this article (he himself linked to this thread, though as has been pointed out by other users here, the purpose of that thread was NOT to start an 'off-Wiki' edit campaign.)

Enturbulation recently became interested in this article following threats and verbal abuse by a member of the 'Church', someone who is heavily involved with the subject of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Peephole_TV&action=history (direct link to edit history, to prove a point further on). Again, I stress that this article was found and linked to on Enturbulation for informative purposes material/background on a certain individual, not to start edit wars. So it's funny then how, not long after this article was 'flagged up' on Enturbulation, justallofthem appears on the edit history; especially significant is the fact that this article, on 'Peephole TV', had no visible connection to CoS, there is only one way someone could have known there was a Scientology connection, and that is by reading the threads on Enturbulation. justallofthem is obviously lurking on Enturbulation and getting 'leads' from there, and in this case one of his primary goals seems to be to seek out Misplaced Pages articles which reflect badly on CoS and alter them, and in that way cause trouble on Misplaced Pages and blame it on Anonymous...typical CoS tactics. I hope that Wiki admins recognise this and take the appropriate action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Moxon (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I merely wondered if the Peephole article met notability guidelines and asked that such notability be shown. Don't get your panties in a bunch, I did nothing the least bit wrong. Anyway, that is not an article I would care to edit. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither primary nor secondary sources must be interpreted in any way. Therefore the article shouldn't say something is supremacist unless an RS plainly says so. That is, any reasonably intelligent reader who looks up the citation will agree that it does indeed say what is claimed. Anything else is OR. Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from an Admin

I've just stumbled across this, and have a statements for any Anti-Scientologists: I think, perhaps, that although Justallofthem (talk · contribs) is a Scientologist, and even if he is from the Office of Special Affairs, he is staying within the rules. Editing on behalf of an external organisation is not encouraged, but we really require concrete proof of such to do anything about it, which we don't have. Our policy is to assume good faith - and thus you must assume that he isn't OSA unless you have a damned good reason to assume otherwise. If any of you want to contact me privately regarding this to explain exactly what you think is happening, please e-mail me using the link on the right. Your e-mail address will not be disclosed to me, and I'll help all I can in answering your questions and concerns, and will explain what safeguards Misplaced Pages has in place to stop anyone from the OSA, or any other organisation (including Enturbulation!), from skewing things. Equally, please do not get all tin-hatty. If you have evidence to support your claims, we can act on them. As it is, however, we're not blocking anyone yet. Assume good faith, and contact me if you have any concerns. I'm in the RN, and thus honour-bound to be impartial when it comes to religions. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

List addition request

Hello everyone. I'm not sure where you want this request, as the page is currently locked out for editing, so I figured here would be the best place. Under "African: New religious movements drawing on traditional African religions." please place Kemetic Orthodoxy - world wide, founded 1988. Also if possible, make the alphabetical listing match? Obviously, if this is not the specific formating for the line entry, it should match whatever the group desires it to look like. - IanCheesman (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

well, now that the protection is gone, I went ahead and did it myself. - IanCheesman (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

more included....?

Alamo Foundation, ref at

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/NRM.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Gurdjieff Foundation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

see more with the ref

NB: I'm talking about the fact, rather than authenticity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC) , blue chips vs secondaries or tertiaries

Benchmarks of those ORGs....?

Can we setup them based on the thesis below?

http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/2227

or other additional criteria  ???

Such as

Health (hospital/GP visit rate, Hygiene profiles)

Happiness (contentedness, ....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC) and any wellbeing benchmarks

Social responsibility —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC) for the sustanability of mankind

Ecoresponsibility —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC) for the sustanability of ecosystem, environment and non-human species.

"Afro-American section"

According to the article "Afro-American religion"--"They derive from African traditional religions, especially of West and Central Africa, showing similarities to the Yoruba religion in particular."

The groups listed do not fit that criteria, but are instead Western Hemisphere groups with sizable black membership.--Editor2020 (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who have erased the "See also" section...

please bring the reason here, otherwise this kind of action is very rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That material was not sequitur to this list. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pappula

Pappula is surname —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshpappula (talk • contribs) 07:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)