Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cirt (talk | contribs) at 04:37, 8 December 2010 (→www.truthaboutscientology.com usage in BLPs: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion work group for improving the articles related to new religious movements.

Scope

There are several NRMs which clearly already fall within the scope of one or more of the more specific religion projects, which I tend to think this project should largely leave to those more specific projects to manage. These include Category:Ahmadiyya, Category:Ayyavazhi, Category:Children of God, Category:Christian Science, Category:Golden Dawn, Category:Iglesia ni Cristo, Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Category:Jesus movement, Category:Jewish Renewal, Category:Nation of Islam, Category:Nation of Yahweh, Category:Neopaganism, Category:Non-traditional Kabbalah, Category:Scientology, Category:Smartism, and Category:Spirituality. All of these are seemingly already within the scope of a more focused project, which probably knows a bit more about the "heritage" of the group than we would. That would leave the scope of this group including those articles in Category:Ascended Master Teachings, Category:Aum Shinrikyo, Category:Cao Dai, Category:Falun Gong, Category:Heaven's Gate, the relevant articles of Category:Hippie movement, Category:House of Yahweh, Category:International Peace Mission movement, Category:Jeung San Do, Category:Manson Family, Category:Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness, Category:New Age, Category:New Thought movement, Category:Order of the Solar Temple, Category:Osho movement, Category:Peoples Temple, Category:Prem Rawat, Category:Rastafari, Category:Raëlism, Category:Sahaja Yoga, Category:Sathya Sai Baba, Category:Shinshukyo, and Category:Church of the SubGenius. Would that be acceptable to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Only if there is scholarly consensus for classification of these momevements as NRMs. This should be investigated on a case by case basis. Andries (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the above comment agrees to not including the groups already within the scope of other projects. As to exactly what "consensus" of the scholar community is, that will probably be difficult to determine exactly, although it might be easier to establish that several scholarly sources to classify such groups in that way. But consensus implies searching all such sources, and that might be problematic. John Carter (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the question whether the scholarly sources agree with each other or at least agree to a great extent about the classification as an NRM has not been determined for the majority of the articles that you listed. Andries (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That argument is unreasonable.... This is a wiki project not an article in mainspace. Project members can propose and include any article that they want to work on and improve. If there are groups that are already being dealt with in other projects, that is not a problem: this project can be a catchall for the rest. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that to be included in a category, including the NRM category, there has to be at least one RS which makes the claim that the group is an NRM, so the matter of sourcing shouldn't be a problem. "Scholarly" sources is problematic, as some might not use the term at all. But, even excluding the groups in List of new religious movements which do fall within one or more other project's scope, there's enough to deal with. One of this group's first priorities might be to ensure that each group listed there is referenced, as per wikipedia policy, maybe including any others we find listed elsewhere as well. That would definitely be a good place to start. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

List

I am starting a list of subjects which might fall within the scope of this group, at least theoretically, at User:John Carter/List of new religious movements. All the subjects named therein are listed in a book dealing with NRMs, etc. I believe they could all be said to be within the scope of this project, at least as main articles, although, of course, if there is another extant project which also deals with a given subject, it might make most sense to allow them to continue to work on it. We should also note that NRM and New Thought should be differentiated. I would respectfully request that no one add to it till I finish, so that I can finish the setup. My being done will be indicated by the removal of the template at the top of the page. The page might also then be substituted for the existing List of new religious movements. In any event, just letting you all know. John Carter (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... sourcing to just Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, may not be a good idea... If we ought to source such a list, we will need a variety of sources, otherwise that article should be List of new religious movements according to Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing comment about anyone not adding to it, sorry. I also have James R. Lewis' The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, but I'm only through the "H"'s in the Beit-Hallahmi listing. I'm assuming, given that the entire Pentecostal movement is counted by B-H as being "new", or at least included in that book, that the scope of this group will be larger than I thought. But I think we could reasonably define the scope of the group as new cults, sects, and/or new religious movements, given the contentious nature of the words "cult" and "sect", but just use the shorter title anyway. If you've got any more to add, though, please do so. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If and when I finish the list of items in the two books, by definition, every entry will qualify for a separate article, more or less, based on a non-trivial reference in the book containing it. Be warned, though, it's going to be a long list. John Carter (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian new religious movements move discussion

Please note a move discussion here at what used to be Christian cults Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

We should re-examine this move. Despite the fact that some have made this into a "cult" vs. NRM issue that is actually not the most pressing problem. In scholarship "Christian cult" almost exclusively refers to cultus.PelleSmith (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Effort to improve Cult

There is an ongoing effort to improve the entry for Cult, which is in horrible shape. Please see the talk page for some discussion. Pleas also see the ongoing rewrite at Talk:Cult/Cult Sandbox. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.PelleSmith (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev enforcement case

Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here over his editing at the Falun Gong family of articles and elsewhere. You might like to comment. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

New category for groups/individuals accused of being "cults"?

I note that there are several organizations listed at List of groups referred to as cults in government documents. I would tend to think that being called a "cult" in a government document of any kind is probably notable, and might be sufficient cause for being included in a category to that effect. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The preamble to the Belgian list states that "he fact that a movement is listed here, even if at the instigation of an official instance, does not signify that the Commission regards it as a cult." The Belgian and French lists include, among others, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), the Jehovah's Witnesses, Taoist yoga and Tai chi (a meditation exercise). None of these are currently categorised as cults, and I don't think we'd find consensus at those articles to change that. JN466 16:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Political cult

Does the article Political cult properly belong in this workgroup? The groups discussed in that article do not seem to have any religious or spiritual component. OTOH, projects often cast wide nets that include peripherally related articles.   Will Beback  talk  18:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it might reasonably be included on the basis of the Political cult#Participation of non-mainstream religious movements in politics, considering that the two groups mentioned in that section have both been described as cults. Iglesia ni Cristo could probably be referenced in that section as well. However, I do acknowledge that that particular article is probably among the least clearly directly relevant articles, and, personally, might not notice particularly if the tag were removed, particularly if some other banner were placed in its stead, because I do think that having some sort of banner placing a quality assessment on the article would be a good thing. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed the Political cult#Participation of non-mainstream religious movements in politics. And yes, Iglesia ni Cristo is known for it's politicl involvement. Explained that way, the inclusion makes sense.   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Scope 2

• The scope of this group is articles relating to new religious movements, which should be included in the Category:New religious movements or its subcategories. However, this group also acknowledges and is grateful for the efforts of other, pre-existing WikiProjects and groups, and plans to devote the bulk of its attention to those articles relating to new religious movements which do not presently fall within the direct scope of other existing projects or groups. These articles include at present the articles in the catgeories and subcategories of:...

I'm having trouble parsing the third sentence. The listed topics are those that are not within an existing project?   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Everybody has trouble reading my sentences, I'm afraid. Is this any better? John Carter (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. I changed "articles" to "topics" so the subject will be clearer.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is Jedism on the List?

Hi! I am wondering why the article on Jedism is on the "High Priority" much less any priority new religious movements category. Aren't they like Trekkies? It just seems odd that anyone could ever take that as a serious religion. To each there own I guess but I am curious what anyone here thinks about my asertion. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, itis said to be an NRM according to the first sentence of the article. When I started going through the assessments, I initially placed the central article of every such group as "High" priority, although I since then have reevaluated and am placing them at "Mid" or "High", depending on their size, impact, etc. This group is here, basically, to just help develop and manage content related to NRMs, and even some of those which might be "parodies" would probably still use some of the relevant terminology of articles this group will work with, which would make them possibly/probaby the people best able to add relevant links, etc. And, unfortunately, I'm trying to be politic here, this probably isn't the only NRM group which some or many individuals might find amusingly odd. Many of those others have serious believers though, and, for all I know, this one probably does as well. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Call for editors to help manage religion related content

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Religion#Coordination of activity. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Christian Conventions

is currently being considered for GA reassessment. Any input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

NRM MoS

We do not currently seem to have any guidelines for NRM articles, despite the fact that they are often among our most contentious. I've discussed the idea of writing an essay or guideline on this subject with a couple of editors, covering topics such as the following:

1. Historical overview of past problems (in generic terms, i.e. without naming and shaming editors and movements; just number of arbitration cases, types of outcome etc.)
2. Review of sourcing standards, with particular emphasis on the following:
   • Encourage the use of reliably published third-party sources (scholars, press, etc.)
   • Discourage the use of movement primary sources, except as referenced by third-party sources
   • Discourage the use of movement and countermovement websites as sources
   • Copyright issues concerning press articles hosted on movement and countermovement websites (convenience links)
3. Review of due weight issues: prominent topics in self-published sources (movement and countermovement) may not be prominent in third-party sources
4. Potential abuse of Misplaced Pages for movement and countermovement advocacy
5. Advice for editors on COI issues
6. Civility issues – religious tolerance and religious discrimination (real or imagined)

Something like this might help editors of NRM topics orient themselves, especially SPAs who are contributing naively without much understanding of site principles. John Carter (talk · contribs) has suggested it might make sense to write this as a Manual of Style for this WikiProject (cf. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Judaism/Manual_of_Style. I think it's a good idea. Thoughts? Anyone want to chip in?

If there are no objections, I'll start the page in a few days' time and add a link to it here. I'll make clear on the page that it is an unapproved draft. --JN466 17:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Two things I personally would like to see addressed:

• 1) Maybe some sort of default article structure outline for articles on NRMs would be a good idea. This could help ensure, if nothing else, that all the relevant verifiable information is given due attention.
• 2) And, similarly, maybe some guidance regarding how to structure articles which are nominally about the founder of a movement which is notable as per WP:NOTABILITY which has the name of the movement redirected to it and the content included there. There seem to be rather a lot of these latter articles, and clearly one structure will not apply to all of them for various reasons, but such guidance would probably help ensure the quality of those articles. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Religion/New_religious_movements_work_group/Manual_of_Style. Please review and let me know what you think about it. --JN466 02:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: UFO religion

Please see Talk:UFO_religion#RfC_Church_of_the_SubGenius. Cirt (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AFD

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tradition, Family and Property

You may wish to review this discussion concerning The American TFP. Thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Opus Dei

I've removed the entry Opus Dei from the list "Good articles" as Opus Dei is an institution within an established church (rc) and part of its structure, but not a NRM. --Túrelio (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I aded the cat yesterday because Opus Dei is currently categorised as an NRM GA. For reliable sources calling Opus Dei an NRM see Talk:Opus_Dei#NRM_category, for the category definition see Category:New_religious_movements. See for a scholarly source that discusses the difficulties of categorisation.

I propose our NRM definition should be based on usage in RS, and our application of the category should be more inclusive than exclusive. In other words, if there are multiple high-end, mainstream reliable sources classifying a movement as an NRM (or a cult), and if they do so in their own editorial voice (rather than in the context of reporting claims made by non-reliable sources), then we should add the category. Otherwise the NRM category as a whole fails to reflect the complete landscape of younger religious movements. --JN466 12:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't know what's meant by "RS", I contest that the sources you provided are "high-end, mainstream reliable sources" proving the NRM claim. I followed all of them and most of them use a sort of weasel-wording in regard to calling Opus Dei a NRM: says "the term NRM is sometimes also used...", says "But among the movements referred to as NMR one might also include ... and sometimes groups .. such as Opus Dei", says "one might also include ... and perhaps even Opus Dei ...". Only and mention Opus Dei simply among NRM, though without much further discussion. You may know (or not) that it is an old strategy of Opus Dei' critics, not to say enemies, to slander it as a sect or a cult. NRM seems to be a new variant of that; the old thing in a new cover. By the way, at the peak of the first Dan Brown novel hype, many newspapers (even those regarded as quality media) in my country, despite having more precise information at hand, called Opus Dei a "lay order", which is splendid nonsense. So far, for reliability. Opus Dei is not just affiliated or associated to the catholic church, but part of its structure (exactly, of its hierarchy). Calling it a NRM is somewhat similar to calling a newly installed catholic diocesis a NRM.

I also contest your statement that "our application of the category should be more inclusive than exclusive". IMHO, NRM is not a totally neutral term/category, therefore inclusion into that category should be rather cautious. At least thats my view. --Túrelio (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

RS means "reliable source", and I for one think that it is probably in both the best interests of that article and this group if we do work with it. One thing I have noticed in several of the Reliable Sources about this subject is that there are a number of clearly new religions involved, such as Cao Dai, as well as a number of more dare I say conservative, possibly reactionary, movements within the more established religions which have developed at around the same time, as a form of "back to basics" approaches to older religions. In fact there are any number of such "restorationist" Hindu, Buddhist, and even some Muslim movements which fall within the scope of this group already. Being able to provide, to at least some degree, some of the external context in which such groups develop is as important as anything else, and I tend to think that the Catholicism group, however good it is, is probably not the best one to do that. And I say this as a practicing, rather conservative Roman Catholic myself. Also, honestly, when it comes time to develop the articles on the history of NRMs, we want to be able to include all of them, not simply the completely new ones, and in the process of so doing will have to include content relating to Opus Dei and other movements. By keeping "tabs" on that article as well, we can help ensure that we don't overly duplicate or other overuse certain material relevant to it in multiple articles. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

John, regarding the Opus Dei categorisation, I believe there are two different issues here, and I may have mixed them up. One is whether or not the article talk page should have an "X-class New religious movements article" and an "X importance New religious movements article" applied to it (I think it definitely should). The other, which I think Túrelio is on about, is whether the article page itself should have the "New religious movements" category applied to it. I thought yes, based on the RS coverage. I thought the "New religious movements" and "New religious movements article" categories would usually correspond, so users of the encyclopedia see the same range of NRMs when they look at the NRM cat as we do when we view the NRM articles categories. But I note that Cao Dai for example does not have the new religious movements category. Only the talk page has. --JN466 19:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dissolving the "RS" and for your considerate comments. As I'm not active in WikiProject Religion (and due to personal time restraints not able to do so), I don't want to interfere with the policies of that specialty project. I dropped in from/with a common people perspective, not the one of a sociologist. As for common people NRM is (or at least sounds) equal to cult, a categorization of the main article under that cat would translate into something like "according to Misplaced Pages Opus Dei is a cult", which is not what you intended, as I am sure. --Túrelio (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There was and is no intention of counting Opus Dei as a cult, or for that matter most other NRMs. That is a very biased term, and we would only even consider using it on any NRM if it was repeatedly referred to as such in reliable sources. It is unfortunate that a lot of NRMs are called "cults", although in one sense many as the newest might qualify as cults of personality. Regarding categorization of the article itself, I think it should be included in the category at least for a short time. Once we have begun to organiza all the articles, I imagine that it will probably wind up being included in a more limited, narrower-focused category, but we won't know what those categories would be until we can review all those articles relevant to the subjet. John Carter (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Project tags are usually added to a broader range of articles than categories. A project tag simply means that the project users are watching the article. It is not determinative of anything to do with the article itself. This comes up with other projects too. For example, someone who has been falsely accused of being gay may included in the the LGBT project just so that issue can be monitored. That's why Larry Craig is included.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming Convention Issues

I recently began doing a Fundamental Rewrite of Twelve Tribes (New religious movement), also overlapped sources overlapped a bit on occasion with Children of God NRM which at the Time was Simply labeled Children of God (Cult) in the interest of NPVO and being more academic. i changed it to Children of God (New religious movement). Then I came across Heaven's Gate titled titled "Heaven's Gate (religious group)" again its wikipedia "the 💕" so again trying to be academic i used the appropriate sociological classification of New Religious Movement. Now Arthur Rubin has not only reverted the the Heaven's gate article but also children of god article to. Talking about naming conventions i reviewed naming convention and i can't find anything to Justify Semi-made up term "Religious Group" over a the sociological term "New Religious Movement" little. I have invited him here to discuss. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC) here is his response on Children of God Talk page:

""New religious movement" is not used except by sociologists. Misplaced Pages has made the decision generally to use terms in common rather than more precise terms which are not actually used except by experts. I lean toward "cult" in both cases, but pejoratives are considered an exception to that decision except where it really is the primary term used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)"

Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thinking it over, in 2008, over 114 references were provided referring to CoG as a cult. I'm beginning to think that "cult" IS a better disambiguator than religious group, and it would be an NPOV violation to refer to it as anything other than a cult. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I had more comments, but Weaponbb7 types faster than I do, and I lost them to edit conflicts. Still, I don't see how "new religious movement" as a disambiguator is consistent with WP:NAME, although I have no argument against it being used as a description -- except for CoG, where "cult" is clearly the appropriate term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

there are thousands of sources declaring Michael Jackson as child molester but we do not start out his lead by saying he was a Child Molester. nor do we start out George W. Bush as "the most hated man on the Planet" though i recall multiple headlines about it. it instantly creates prejudice in the reader towards that person. We should stick to apprpriate neutral acdemic terms rather than subjective media popular culture terms.Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any source, other than academic treatises, which does not refer to CoG as a cult? If not, we should refer to it as a cult. In fact, if the vast majority of reliable sources refer to it as a cult, then WP:NPOV demands that we do so. (In other words, it would not be enough for you to find one newspaper article that doesn't refer to it as a cult; I'd say you'd need to find at least 35 for it not to be appropriate in the lede, and at least 114 for it not to be appropriate in the article as a whole.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

my point is "Cult" is opinionated statement, it is not fact. Saying it is a "New Religous Movement" is a Fact. The way "cult" is presented it stressed as a fact. At the end of the paragraph it says "The Children of God was among the movements prompting the cult controversy of the 1970s and 1980s in the United States and Europe and triggered the first organized anticult group FREECOG." this already indicates that it was considered a cult by critics thus NPOV is achieved.Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

<-- outdent

There are still two points. "... is ... almost universally almost universally described as a sex cult" probably should be in the lede, and certainly should be in the article. Being the prototypical cult as seen by critics does not adequately represent that fact, and NPOV requires that be given its proper weight. See also the proper use (as seen by consensus over at least 5 years, in spite of occassional violations of policy removing it) of "terrorist" in 9/11 attacks, in spite of it being pejorative and specifically forbidden by WP:TERRORIST.

And the naming choice seems to fail WP:NAME. It certainly fails WP:COMMONNAME, but I don't give that as a high a weight as others. The criteria suggested at WP:NAME are as follows:

• 1. Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.

     Not unless you restrict "reliable sources" to scientific papers. This applies to Jayen466's analysis of the proper name of the article, as well.

  2. Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles).

     No, and ditto, above.

  3. Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.

     Yes, but see below.

  4. Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.)

     "Religious group" is more concise, and seems adequately precise. "Cult" would be even more precise and concise, but might violate WP:NPOV.

  5. Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles.

     Normally, I would support giving the appropriate WikiProject leeway in assigning names. However, since this task force has one of the disputed names, I would request that concensus of at least the WikiProject is required to add something which might be a neologism.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Including "is ... almost universally described as a sex cult" would be quite wrong, especially so in the lede, given that the same source, Clarke, also states that the emphasis on sex has greatly diminished in the group since the mid-80s. However, the history section should contain the information that the COG were almost universally described that way, 25 or 30 years ago. --JN466 18:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To say a Widely used academic term is a Neologism is absurd. It is used widely used in Anthropology, Sociology, Religious Studies the shear number of Mainstream Books site like amazon.com that use the term in the title is more than Sufficent. it has been widley uesd in Acdemia Since the 1980s! It has wikipedia article which is not proof but is considerable evidence of notability of the term. I suggest that the Burden of proof fall on you to verify it as Neogism. until then i will put the proper term in. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I read Misplaced Pages:NAME#Descriptive names, descriptiveness trumps frequency (as in the example given). "New religious movement" is not a neologism; it is used by the press as well. Just "religious movement" is an alternative I could live with as well. However, let me point out that if we move the article to Family International, as I believe we should, then the problem will be moot. --JN466 19:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Religious movement" is fine with me. We still need to decide the proper disambiguations to be used in redirects and descriptions to be used in disambiguation pages. In terms of redirects, I don't see any reason to remove Children of God (cult), Children of God (religious group) or Children of God (new religious movement) (the later with any combination of capitalizations that Wbb7 would tend to use, except that the one with the disambiguator in lower case must be present). As for "cult" in the lede, if the scientific sources say that it had been considered a sex cult, then that should be in the text (history section), and not the lede. I'll defend that choice against other attempts to restore "cult" to the lede if I can confirm that the real scientific sources say that. (The "repressed/recovered memory" edit wars suggest that some editors may misrepresented scientific sourced, although editors with different biases may misrepresent different sources.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would concede that "Religious Movement" is precise enough; however NRM would be the best route considering for overall. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, then I think we have found a way forward that's acceptable to all of us. Arthur, you can view Clarke in amazon if you are an amazon customer: The "sex cult" passage is on page 206 of the e-book version that amazon shows you (it is page 186 in the 2008 paperback version; the text is the same). If you can't view it in amazon, let me know, and I'll type it out for you. – I still think we should move the article to Family International, per the four recent encyclopedias I checked. --JN466 22:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I agree that there is no need to delete the old redirects. Redirect titles are exempt from NPOV. If it's a plausible search term that a user might enter, we should keep it. --JN466 22:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm an amazon.com customer, not an amazon.co.uk customer, and they don't seem to allow searching within books. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I find my login works equally on both. amazon.com generally has more previews than amazon.co.uk; however, this is a book by a British academic. --JN466 08:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The book is also online here. Can you access this? Entering page number 251 / 842 in the page number box (top middle) takes me to the beginning of page 205 of the e-book. The entry on The Family starts halfway down that page; the "sex cult" passage and its context are on the next page. --JN466 08:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More "cult issues" POV issues

I am disengaging on the reverts right now, Arthur Rubin insists that marginalizing group with POV statement of "cult" here is more proper than NPOV statement of New religious movement.Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

Per Misplaced Pages:NAME#Descriptive_names, "Where articles have descriptive names, they are neutrally worded. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject." Weaponbb7 is right; "new religious movement" does that better than "cult". --JN466 04:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There are (at least) two issues.

1. The use of cult in the lede of CoG (where an editor noted 114 references in 2008 on the talk page). This should not be removed unless contrary evidence is provided.

Large Percentage of the world Considers George W. Bush as Warmonger, i am sure i can find dozens of references state it. However it is opinion not a fact. Saying he was had two strongly criticized major military interventions in the middle east is fact.Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

1. The choice of (cult), (religious group), (new religious movement) as disambiguators in the title. With the possible exception of CoG and one other group which shall remain nameless until I remember its name, where this is no dispute whatsoever that it was a cult, it's inappropriate to have cult as a disambiguator. WP:COMMONNAME suggests "religious group" rather than NRM, although NRM should probably be in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

from Misplaced Pages:NAME#Descriptive names "Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Misplaced Pages describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." This is done with "Religious Group" thus it is more appropriate to use a scientific term "new religious movement."it is not like we are using latin or greek term it is clear and concise.Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• As for the lead, if lots of people called the COG a cult (cf. "The Children of God was soon to be almost universally described as a sex cult", ref: Clarke, Peter B. (2006). Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Routledge. p. 186. ISBN 978-0415453837.), then we can report that, but we shouldn't make the judgement part of the article's editorial voice. As it is, the lede already says that the COG were at the forefront of the cult controversy, so in my opinion the inclusion of "is a cult" is redundant.
• As for the article name, "new religious movement" is the neutral scientific term; I'd recommend editors agree to use it. --JN466 15:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Incidentally, the article should be called Family, as are the corresponding entries in encyclopedias like Beit-Hallahmi (1998), Melton/Baumann (2002), Clarke (2006), Melton (2009). --JN466 15:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems The Family International is the current, up-to-date name, per Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, 2009, p. 676. --JN466 16:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

agree with above statement Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

AFD Nomination of Article Jediism

Discussion here > Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jediism Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

withdrawn one can review my statement in link aboveWeaponbb7 (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with Another Gospel (Ruth Tucker's countercult book)

I would like to ask if some people here could please get involved in improving the page on Another Gospel (a countercult book published by Zondervan in 2004). I was hoping to expand this page somewhat in order to improve its NPOV, provide context for the average reader, and basically transform it from an "insider book review" into a worthy encyclopedia article. However, there have been some serious disagreements and difficulties; read the talk page carefully for more details. At the moment, there are really only two people attempting to work on this page; I think it's important to get more editors involved, in order to obtain input from more minds, and also to avoid the temptation or misperception that any one person might be claiming ownership of the article. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A third opinion was solicited, and apparently Richwales (talk · contribs) does not wish to abide by this process. He continues to refuse to provide specific sources to back up his claims. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC for Another Gospel

Please see Talk:Another_Gospel#RfC:_NPOV_and_article_Another_Gospel. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: New section on language for the NRM Manual of Style

PROPOSAL TEXT:

New Religious Movement (NRM) groups often use words and phrases that have unfamiliar, non-traditional, or loaded meanings. Sometimes the words are neologisms, but often they appropriate common language and add a definition and connotation that the non-affiliated reader would not expect or interpret. Misplaced Pages policies on language are clear that they should be one thing above all: transparent. The reader should know when he or she is encountering a new term or a familiar term in a new context.

Therefore, NRM vocabulary, jargon, or slang--the words and phrases which are not widely understood outside a specific group or are understood differently by different people--should be either avoided or explained where possible. Jargon develops as a kind of shorthand among members of a group. Some articles may never become accessible to a wide readership, but most articles using NRM terms should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typical NRM writing.

Pay particular attention to terms for which the movement's meaning is different from the commonly understood meaning. Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: either that of insiders (students/believers/practitioners) or outsiders (critics/exit-counselors/skeptics) labeling and describing the movement as each sees it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral, and vice/versa.

There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term. The rule should be to state facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader.

In the case, that an article becomes weighed down with definitions, consider including a glossary of language unique to the movement as a sub-section or see-also page.

While maintaining transparency, NRM articles should also be precise, careful to use NRM language only in its formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or confusing the reader. As for controversial terms, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view. The consensus among reliable sources is by its very nature the majority viewpoint of writers towards a topic.

Thus, when talking about controversial topics, we should not describe opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While minority viewpoints may in some cases be significant to an article, they should not obfuscate the description of the main views. Any mention should be proportionate, representing the minority and minority views respectively as such and including explanations of how the majority has received the minority's theories. That approach does not, of course, prohibit a full treatment of minority views, providing they are appropriately sized and sourced. This is all part of describing differing views fairly.

(heavily paraphrased from existing policy, references: ) 71.224.204.226 (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems a little redundant much of this is already there, This most is good advice if one is writing a news article and interviewing people for the article. There is no need for Jargon that can easily be avoided. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. Thanks for your research into how existing guidelines might apply in this field. I'll look into this. --JN466 02:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and associated pages

Hi, regarding the long-running content disputes over articles and pages relating to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, I have opened an WP:RFC. Please see: Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#RFC: Long-running content disputes. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 12:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, Younus AlGohar and associated pages

At an AN/I here, JzG (talk · contribs) suggests that a number of related articles could do with come help. Quote:

"... I have done some pruning but I really need people with much deeper subject knowledge on new religious movements and ideally understanding of the languages so that sources can be evaluated; this looks like a walled garden to me:

• Kalki Avatar Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mehdi Foundation International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Interfaith Institute of Divine Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Younus AlGohar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ra Gohar Shahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"I don't see a lot of mainstream sources in these articles, it looks like one of those tiny cults that spring up around individual gurus, and much of the text in the articles is in-universe descriptions of wonderful works, miracles and such, cited back to YouTube or a small group of websites dedicated to promoting the movement. I get an itchy delete finger looking at this stuff so more eyes would be greatly appreciated." EndQuote.

Any help appreciated. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 18:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Article critical of Younus AlGohar and MFI

An aggrieved IP has put forward this article, which is highly critical of Younus AlGohar and MFI. Esowteric+Talk 09:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have concerns about how reputable the article itself is, given some of it's claims, although it might be possible to use to talk about some concerns from the Muslim world...I've commented in detail at Talk:Messiah Foundation International.--Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 09:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as Omirocksthisworld (talk · contribs) noticed, the references look impressive at first glance ... until you actually click on them. Have pointed the IP to the RS noticeboard. Esowteric+Talk 09:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have presented this article as a reliable source pertaining to above mentioned disputed articles. Now, I would highly appreciate, if you kindly discuss the reference is reliable or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.8.183 (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Swami Sivananda Radha Heavy COI page, Going though afd comments are welcome Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Rickross.com and similar sites raised again

Once again someone has brought up rickross and similar sites to the attention of the Reliable sources board in relation to NRM-related articles. The last time this came up, there was a reasonable near-consensus. So anyone wanting to restate your arguments for/against, the subject has been reopened. • Astynax 20:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement

A WikiProject has been created, for the topic with main article: Transcendental Meditation movement. The project page is located at WP:TMMOVEMENT. Feel free to list yourself as a participant there. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

List of cult and new religious movement researchers

We need to make up our minds as to what the inclusion criteria for this list article should be; project members are invited to join the discussion on Talk:List of cult and new religious movement researchers. --JN466 21:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Art of Living input

The Art of Living Foundation article has an issue concerning poor sourcing and an editor who likes to insert links referencing the group's website for even extraordinary claims. I had opened a section on the article's talk calling for better sources, but the point evidently did not get through. It may be useful for other editors to comment/explain. Other problems include obvious PoV with the article downplaying the religious component and overemphasizing its charitable work. The article shouldn't read like a self-sourced press release, but I haven't time to do much more than watch this one. • Astynax 18:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposing moving Latter Rain Movement

Having come across the Latter Rain Movement article in List of new religious movements, I found that the article describes a post-WWII movement which doesn't include information on the movement of that name which traces to the late-1800s. I've proposed an article move with "Latter Rain Movement" becoming a disambiguation page. Interested editors are invited to comment on the article's Talk page. • Astynax 20:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sukyo Mahikari

The entry Sukyo Mahikari Sukyo Mahikari has been a problematic article for a long time with considerable edits which disturbs the neutrality of the subject; can someone assist in verifying the article please? Dexter73 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption at article, "Operation Snow White"

RfC on Jehovah's Witnesses

There is currently a request for comment regarding statements made by members of this group in the past regarding expected future events (such as the end of the world) which have apparently not proven accurate. Input is requested on how if at all material regarding those alleged "prophecies" as well as about whether they qualify those who made them as "false prophets" at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Failed Preductions/False Prophet Accusation against Jehovah's Witnesses. Any and all input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD - The Bridge (2006 drama)

• The Bridge (2006 drama)

Relevant AFD, please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Bridge (2006 drama). -- Cirt (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And another AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Raëlian Church membership estimates-Steve Dufour (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Raelian articles

I have to say that I believe that there is a good chance that some of the articles regarding Raelism are of at best dubious encyclopedic quality. Raëlian Church membership estimates strikes me as being perhaps the most obvious, as perhaps a violation of WP:TRIVIA. I don't know of similar pages for any other religious groups, and honestly hope there aren't any. I personally very much think that the entire content of the article could be summarized in one or two sentences in the main Raelism article. Do any other people have any similar concerns regarding this or other articles? John Carter (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Other than a single contributor is behind each of them? Everyone here has our own pet NRM projects so that itself is not bad, but its a concern here to be sure when dubious articles like Raëlian Church membership estimates start appearing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This thread is duplicative - there is already an ongoing thread about this, at WP:FTN. -- Cirt (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD

This article seems to be related to your group: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Discordian calendar (2nd nomination). So far it has not attracted much interest, although a lot of work obviously went into the article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

www.truthaboutscientology.com usage in BLPs

Please see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.truthaboutscientology.com_usage_in_BLPs. -- Cirt (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)