Talk:Academic study of new religious movements

Standards for inclusion

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

Please do not unilaterally remove entries from this list page. The standards for inclusion are published work on the subject matter in a peer reviewed publication. -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Doubled time period, for future archiving

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

• This is a good idea, but keep in mind that discussions on these lesser-traffic articles will go very slowly, sometimes going for months before the discussions are noticed, much less continued. Better to leave discussions up until they seem to have a real resolution before archiving them. It's not like the page has a hard limit on number of characters or anything like that. Whateley23 (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Nod, can always extend the archiving again in the future. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Objective criteria for entries

Following on the discussion immediately above about standards for inclusion, I agree that the standards need to be clarified. Since Cirt insists on deleting my last comment from the active discussion page (sending it back to the archive, on the grounds that it is "stale" because it was made several months ago), I will re-post it here:

Some of the people on the list are questionable; perhaps some of them should be discussed. Getting an opinion piece published does not make one a "researcher", which is what this list is for. I'm not sure why Eileen Barker was removed; she is a well-respected researcher and conducted a major empirical study, which was cited. Also notably absent are major names such as David G. Bromley, Anson Shupe, Larry Shinn, J. Gordon Melton, Jeffrey K. Hadden, and perhaps Massimo Introvigne (I know less about his work). I would suggest adding these names. Sources are easy to find on their respective Wikipedia article pages. I would also suggest that other sources be found for most of those who are cited using publications of the International Cultic Studies Association (such as the Cultic Studies Journal). Its predecessor was once the premier anti-cult activism organization in the U.S., and its journal is not regarded as unbiased or academically strong. If the article referenced is clearly a reasonable, scientifically sound empirical study, we should retain it, but some of the citations are mere opinion pieces, and these should certainly be dropped in favor of a more reputable publication. Other citations should also be replaced with better ones, for example, the citation for Bill Goldberg (social worker) is "Cults on Campus: How Can You Help?", which obviously falls short of establishing Goldberg as a researcher. -DoctorW 06:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably the Cultic Studies Journal wants to clean up its act and become more reputable. Perhaps it has changed a lot in the last 10 years; I wouldn't know.

The first standard for inclusion on this list is that the person be a researcher. The second is publication about that specific research study in a peer-reviewed journal or academic book. Steven Hassan fails on both counts. But Cirt writes:

"DoctorW removed some entries [two, in fact: Hassan and Bonewits] based on personal opinion, and added Barker, which is of the same caliber as those that were removed."

I removed those two people because they do not come close to meeting the objective criteria. Ironically, these two write about their opinions without doing any research. Hassan does not even have any background or training in research, as pointed out above.

Most interestingly, Cirt believes that Hassan is of the same caliber as a researcher as Barker.

Perhaps there should be another list for authors who write about cults, but who are not researchers. Or, since many of them are anti-cult activists, a list for that. But let's not denigrate the good name and dedication of researchers by making the title meaningless. -DoctorW 01:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Cultic Studies Journal is a reputable publication. The very scholar that User:DoctorW writes positively about above, Eileen Barker, is a member of the editorial review board of the Cultic Studies Journal. The tone of the commentary by User:DoctorW is a bit over the top and unnecessary, as explained with this one example regarding double-standards related to Cultic Studies Journal. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to add - in my view Barker is among the leading experts on the sociology of New Religious Movements whereas Hassan is an anti-cult lobbyist relying on outdated theories. But with the current inclusion criteria it seems difficult to argue that he shouldn't be included. ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the general viewpoint held by many cult members regarding Hassan - who do not appreciate the light shed by his research and writings. But, that is only a personal opinion and viewpoint. It also does not address the double-standard pointed out, with regards to the POV interpretation of Cultic Studies Journal by User:DoctorW. Now we also have User:Maunus praising Eileen Barker, who, again, is on the editorial review board of, Cultic Studies Journal. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for painting me as "a cult member", would you like to elaborate on that or do you just throw around ad hominem arguments and assumptions of bad faith whenever someone disagrees with you? It happens to be a viewpoint that can be sourced to quite a number of actual academic experts on the sociology of religion that Singer's theories and the way they are used by deprogrammers is thoroughly unsupported and unscientific. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Was not my intention. Merely pointing out it is the same POV. -- Cirt (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also the pov of the American Psychological Association. Association fallacy.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Thank you, Astynax. -- Cirt (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please beware of canvassing by DoctorW (talk · contribs) with regards to this article. These multiple user talk page postings [1] [2] [3], are most certainly not "Neutrally worded notifications". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of the guideline Wikipedia:Canvassing (or that Cirt might be stalking me). I did not think it was inappropriate to express my observations frankly about what's happening to this article and ask for input from 3 editors who I believe to be level-headed and intelligent. I do admit, however, that this is a clever way for Cirt to deflect attention away from his own behavior; perhaps he would like to put the quality of this article first instead of spending so much energy being contentious. -DoctorW 03:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:DoctorW posted to the user talk pages, "An editor who may not know much about the topic seems to have taken "ownership" of the article and is ignoring criteria for inclusion that have been in place for years." This is indeed a rather blatant attempt at poisoning the well of the discussion, even before the users canvassed by User:DoctorW had looked at the page or its discussion page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the notification itself was not correctly worded and does run afoul of WP:CANVASS. However being a member of WP:NRM I find it naturally that I be notified of discussions about NRM related subjects, and natural that I chip in with my view point.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, then in that case you could have been notified with a neutrally worded message, in one central location, not a POV-pushing post to a user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability of entries

Only notable entries should be added to this list. People listed on this page should all have existing Wikipedia articles. -- Cirt (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed some non-notable redlinked entries. Of course, they could be added back, if they have existing Wikipedia articles. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, above you stated that "The standards for inclusion are published work on the subject matter in a peer reviewed publication", a criterion which I think all the people you deleted (Peter B. Clarke, Andreas Grünschloss, Lorne L. Dawson and Gerald Willms) easily meet. I'll create BLPs for those that qualify, but we need to make up our mind here what the standards for inclusion actually are. Their having a Wikipedia biography is, I think, putting the cart before the horse. --JN466 21:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is in addition to having a Wikipedia article as a requirement, prior to being included on this page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a note to the NRM project's talk page; perhaps we can get some other editors to weigh in. Personally, I think peer-reviewed publications speak for themselves, regardless of whether we have written a BLP on them yet or not, or indeed whether they qualify under WP:PROF or not. Cheers, --JN466 21:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Someone could have published and yet not be independently notable themselves enough for an article on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. We do not avoid mention of all people in our articles who are not notable enough for their own entry, if they are otherwise within the scope of the article. If someone has published several dozen peer-reviewed studies, that makes them a researcher in the field, whether they qualify under WP:PROF for a BLP of their own or not. --JN466 02:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've started basic BLPs for Peter B. Clarke, Andreas Grünschloß, Lorne L. Dawson and James A. Beckford. I'll add these to the list in a day or two, unless I hear from you. --JN466 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Slashes in fields

Let us please avoid slash / in the Field entry. If an individual received their Ph.D. in sociology, then it should say sociology. If they received their degree in religious studies, it should say religious studies. -- Cirt (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I follow your line of thought but i see issues, for example Susan J. Palmer got here PHD in Sociology but teaches in the Religion Department or Massimo Introvigne who has Juris Doctorate (or Italian Equivalent) but is by all mean a Sociologist in this field of NRM. So not allowing the slash seems to complicate rather than simplify thingsWeaponbb7 (talk)

The problem is that many of the people here are sociologists of religion. It depends on the vagaries of the university with which they are affiliated whether they work in a Department of Religious Studies, or a Department of Sociology. It is quite possible for someone to have qualified as a sociologist of religion, but then to hold a chair of religious studies, and then move to another university where they hold a chair in the social sciences department. I agree it's messy, but I don't see an elegant solution. --JN466 02:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

For those where there is truly more than one discipline, how about using a line break and listing the secondary focus beneath? I don't like slashes, either. For one thing, they make the column unnecessarily wider (at least in my browser). The new field for notes means there is more vertical space available to use if needed. But I would think that most would be noted more for their work in one area than others. • Astynax ^talk 02:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines for Inclusion

Other than the Usual caveats of What is a NRM or Cult i think most of this should be relatively easy Draft Proposal:

• Published at least 3 articles in the field or at least 1 well received theoretical work in the field
• Attacked as a "Cult apologist" (usually a good indication that one is interested in a research and not screaming evil cult)

any thoughts? Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No. That seems incredibly POV, especially the second part. -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We have all have our own POV, perhaps you are right Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

any other Criteria you can think of? Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Description as researcher or performed study of cults or new religious movements, by independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh Yes, the building blocks of Wiki, WP:RS and WP:V, I say we try and limit it too Scholarly Sources as the media is legendary for defining "Expert" something totally different from what Academia would call expert. This Will substantially improve the quality rather than a Resume Posting place. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Something like "Published at least 3 peer-reviewed journal articles and/or articles included in a reputable scholarly work, or at least 1 well received book in the field" might work, perhaps. --JN466 02:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep it simple. Described as a researcher by at least two independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Professors and sociologists are rarely described as "researchers"; they are more commonly called scholars, professors, sociologists, scientists etc. who have published a study, or simply named and their work referenced. --JN466 03:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be okay too. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

:) --JN466 03:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Getting an opinion piece published does not make one a "researcher". Being called a researcher by a friend, sympathizer, or sloppy writer doesn't either. The first requirement must necessarily be that the person is actually a researcher according to the normal academic definition, not according to some convoluted definition that contradicts the normal one. -DoctorW 01:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Biased list

Why is this list tilted so heavily toward the anti-cult perspective? A number of anti-cult authors are really questionable. The most ludicrous inclusion is Steven Hassan, who is not a researcher by any stretch of the imagination. He doesn't even have any graduate training in research methods (No PhD)! You wouldn't publish a list of current doctors in an encyclopedia and include someone who doesn't even have a medical degree. Steven Hassan is a counselor and a polemicist, and doesn't even pretend himself to be an unbiased scientist. It's a disgrace to Wikipedia that he would be on this list, and frankly, seeing it here is discouraging. I could try to be charitable and assume the person who added him to the list doesn't know what a researcher is, but from the look of the list overall I have to conclude that it's just bias pure and simple.

DoctorW is obviously correct and the last comment by Cirt doesn't even make any sense. 207.98.198.13 (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to add more names then that'd be great. But deleting sourced material isn't so helpful.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break. The "source" doesn't indicate in any way that he is a researcher or has ever done research. It says that he created his own counseling method. If I remove a deep splinter requiring an incision, that doesn't make me a surgeon. First you have to have a medical degree, then you have to actually do surgeries. A researcher has to do research studies (at least one!) with proper controls and methodology according to the standards of the field. That methodology must first be learned, which normally takes place during a PhD course of study. This of course is perfectly obvious to anyone actually in these fields. 207.98.198.13 (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)