This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think that this list should be re-named into list of cults and new religious movements researchers. Some people who are listed here, such as Eileen Barker, generally avoid the term cult. Others find it a appropriate term as long as it properly and neutrally defined. Andries 06:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the minor change that cult and movement should be singular terms (having 'list of cults' as the first three words is misleading). Title is still a little clunky. Antonrojo 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: the comment above was moved from List of cult researchers to preserve the discussion. Antonrojo 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross does not fit the stated criteria. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't easily find information about his education. However, the intended purpose is to list researchers who get peer or government review for their work and try to avoid pro or anti-cult statements in an attempt to be neutral which probably isn't the case here. I'm adding him to the List of anti-cult organizations and individuals since he's listed as a 'cult de-programmer' and 'exit counsler'. A few arguments for removing him from this list are 1) he has no formal degree in a related area [1] and 2) no peer reviewed research. On the other hand since he's served as an expert witness in trials, and started an institute that seems to have a fairly objective view of cults, I think a fair argument can be made that he's a 'margin case' between the two lists. My inclination is to remove him from the list and I wouldn't revert that. Feedback from people who know his work better would be good. Antonrojo 20:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that moving Mr. Ross to that category is more accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes,

1. what about the fact that he has served as an expert witness at trials and started an institute with the title for the study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements?
2. What about the fact that he has served as a consultant to the FBI,
3. lectured at numerous universities on the topic,
4. been a paid consultant to the television and media on the subject,
5. been deposed as an expert witness in 8 states (this alone should be enough, if 8 other courts think he is an expert witness?

For the above reasons I will add him back in to the list.

Yours, Smeelgova 20:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

No one is arguing that he is not a consultant, or that he paricipated as an exper witness. But that does not make him a researcher, to warrant a listing alongside scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see him more an an activist. He's been an advocate of the theory of mind control, he is a former deprogrammer, and he was involved in the FBI/ATF raid on Waco. There is, of course, controversy over how much he influenced the decision to storm the compound. In any case, he does not conduct "research": he's not an academic or scholar of any kind, no matter how much anti-cult people are determined to cite him as an "expert". -- Uncle Ed 15:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should find some way to split this group into subsections/organize? Smeelgova 20:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Sure. Maybe by their credentials, such as Sociologists of Religion, Psychiatrists, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Smeelgova 00:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

I have moved the various individuals into subsections by their topic of study/credentials. Smeelgova 00:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

I think that we are mixing apples with oranges by adding government officials to this list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We can break the list down into separate sections. These individuals were involved with drafting the About-Picard law, one would imagine that they must have been involved in loads of research. I will restore. Smeelgova 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Also, when this page was first created, the description included government researchers as appropriate. This is a major change, and I think we should discuss it - as well as break the researchers down into groups by category. Smeelgova 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Some of thes politicians are not "researchers", they are "politicians" with an interest in the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but they are politicians who have done heavily extensive research and writing on the subjects, as a result of their legislative efforts. I will restore these. Smeelgova 22:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

They are not researchers, they are politicians that were involved in passing some laws. You would not call them researchers, or list them alongside them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

They have been interviewed as to their expertise in media/press sources. They have done extensive research in the course of their legislation. In some cases they know more about the subject than many of the other researchers on this list. Yes, they can be classified as researchers. Smeelgova 22:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

The current categorization is not 100% accurate. Some of the people in the "Theology" section are Sociologists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Fixed these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I am not so sure the "Authors" section belongs in this article. Some of them are not "reseachers" at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Their works are cited by numerous other researchers in the field. They have done extensive research through the course of finding sources for their works. Smeelgova 22:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

That does not make them researchers, alongside scholars. You may want to create an article List of authors of books related to cults or something like that. As for the politicians, same approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A "researcher" does not have to be a "scholar" [2] Tanaats 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

And a "politician" is not a researcher, unless he really is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

We do not have to have minutiae-style sub-lists. It would be better to have more accurate subheadings within this article itself, and have all the various cult/NRM authories within one article. Smeelgova 06:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

"To make researches; investigate carefully" [3] Tanaats 17:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Pierre Jougla is a "solicitor". "Lawyers" should be in the subject heading. Tanaats 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I will be moving the section "Politicians" to the article called Cults and governments ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

See related discussion at: Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults, on why others may not think this is such a good idea. Lists are lists so that they can be propagated and be a resource for one-click stop-shop info. Perhaps there is a way to keep the list here and also make a small section on the page you mentioned, so the info will be in both places? Also not a good idea to make declaratory statements on things you will do (merging and such) without any discussion. Better to say "I am proposing to move such and such..." 64.19.74.116.

The section should not be merged into Cults and governments. The individuals and information should be listed here, and if relevant, mentioned in the appropriate mainspace of the article you mentioned, and/or other articles for that matter. Smeelgova 08:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

For anyone familiar with the research literature on the subject, it is obvious what the order of section entries should be if ordered by importance (it is not POV). Alphabetical order roughly reverses the order of importance, and is not at all appropriate at present. The "Authors" section contains people who probably shouldn't be on the page (unless under a final section entitled "Other investigators"), and politicians are similarly not in the appropriate category as "researchers". They should either be moved as proposed above, or likewise be put in a section at the end for "Other investigators". Order of importance is the principle behind order by most common first in disambiguation_pages. - Do c t orW 05:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless we are expected to be guided without question by your authority, would you mind explaining the rationale behind this "obvious" order? Thanks. Tanaats 05:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly alphabetical order by profession/educational background is the most neutral way to order these individuals. Smeelgova 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Reordered. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this looks much better. Thanks. Smeelgova 02:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

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

DrW, you've changed the criteria for inclusion stated at the very beginning of the article. Changing the criteria by which it is decided what should or should not be placed in the article is a big change. I've put it back the way it was until it can be discussed. Tanaats 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The only discussion of the subject above is your quoting the third definition of research found on the page you cited instead of the first one (and the first one corresponding to the common definition in such matters and to the qualification I provided in my bold edit). What other criteria would you suggest? The prevailing definition of research used in encyclopedias should be used on Wikipedia. You did not respond to my statement (in my edit summary) that the criteria should be:

• "'Scientific or clinical research'; other methodologies shouldn't be called 'research', otherwise every cult member is a researcher."

It also would have been courteous for you to have posted here what I wrote that you deleted:

• This list includes those who have conducted scientific or clinical research on new religious movements/ cults which has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Personally, I think there is no safeguard preventing this page from deteriorating into a farce unless some similar criteria to those I've proposed be adopted. - Do c t orW 05:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the way I see things:

• Yes, that may have been all the discussion we had previously on the term "research", and you are certainly entitled to open the discussion up again.
• I don't think that I should be expected to scrape your comments out of the edit summaries and copy them here. I think it's up to you to state them here on the Talk page. I'm open to correction on this.
• As for the etiquette question, my goodness I haven't seen you move my stuff to the talk page after you've rv'd it! Tanaats 06:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I will remember your words above, and bring them to bear next time you do an unilateral edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So far I don't believe that I've made a unilateral change that significantly altered the criteria for inclusion of material in an article. That was the basis of my objection. If I have unilaterally made an edit of the same magnitude, then I apologize and I wish you would point out where I did that so I can understand better what I should or shouldn't do. Other than that, I have been trying to follow WP:BRD.

But now that you have made me think a bit more, what I should have done is to follow WP:BRD myself by reverting and inviting DrW to discuss on the Talk page, rather than rebuking him for having made the edit "unilaterally". So I apologize to DrW for the inappropriate rebuke. Tanaats 02:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This section should list authors only. Not every person that was interviewed or ever spoke on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Herbert L. Rosedale was a contributor to Recovery from Cults (book). Smeelgova 11:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

A "contributor" to a book does no make a person an "author". This section shoukld only include "published authors". Same thing for self-published authors, or authors of obscure periodicals. These should also not be included. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

See another book authored by the subject: The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ (published once and then again in a revised edition). I will restore. Smeelgova 11:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Self published author? "Amer Family Foundation"? We need to have some kind of threshold for inclusion, don't you think? Same applies to "contributors". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The book was published once and then revised and published again. And whether or not the author is self-published is irrelevant, this does not invalidate the work. I will remove the tag. Smeelgova 11:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

This is becoming one of these, Smeelgova. A person that published one article in an obscure magazine, or is self-published ins not an "author". Please... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As proposed, this section needs to be moved to his own article or merged with Cults and governments. It is not fitting an article on NRM researchers. Alternatively, a list of politicians opposing cults and NRMs could be compiled and placed on its own article, as that seems to be who these people are, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion. However the original version of this list included government researchers, and that is what these individuals are. Much independent research is done in drafting legislation and/or government functions investigating cults. If you feel like it, feel free to add information to the Cults and governments article. As that is an article and this is a list, the information can be in two places in different formats. Apparently others feel the same way. Smeelgova 11:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

That is your opinion, as the other was mine... My proposal includes moving these to their own list, such as List of politicians opposing cults as well as considering moving to them more appropriate article. This list is a list of researchers, not a list in which every politician that ever signed a bill on the subject needs to be listed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, that is an inappropriate name for the list, sounds way too POV. Second of all, these individuals have not simply "signed bills", but are authorities on the subject in their own right, through the research they have independently done on the subject. Many of these individuals have spoken out on the issues as commentators, written their own works on the subjects related to their research/actions in government, etc. Smeelgova 11:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I am not sure that this is the case. I checked some of the names you added recently and these are most definitively politicians and not researches. Would you add a politician to "List of Cancer researchers", just because a politician supported a bill or studied, and/or commented on the issue? Of course not. Would you add a politician to the "List of environment researchers" because they passed a bill on global warming,? Of course not. And BTW, a "List of politicians opposing cults" would not be POV, if indeed these politicians opposed cults. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not see why we should have such a list of politicians in this list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Other individuals feel differently. At any rate, yes, if the politicians who supported/authored the types of bills you mentioned above had appeared in media as expert commentators on the subject, authored articles and/or bills on the subject, and/or served on highly influential panels on the subject, I would consider them researchers. Smeelgova 11:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

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

"Other individuals" include you and an anon user with 10 edits. Do you mean to wait until this list degrades to a point that we then need to clean it up? Not sure we should go that way. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the list will degrade. And if other users only includes myself and an anon, then we should also wait and see what others think. In any event, the list can simply get longer and users can use the table of contents to go to a specific subsection/individual. Smeelgova 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I provided a very substantial argument above, which you ignored. Provide a counter-argument rather than changing subjects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

No, You are skirting the issue. I am asserting that these people may be not authors and may be not researchers. Please restore the tag, that is highly appropriate given the dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your tag is inappropriate, because these indiduals are indeed authors and politicians, and researchers, see below. Smeelgova 12:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I will repeat my argument again. Would you add a politician to "List of Cancer researchers", just because a politician supported a bill or studied, and/or commented on the issue? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And I will repeat my response above here, again: yes, if the politicians who supported/authored the types of bills you mentioned above had appeared in media as expert commentators on the subject, authored articles and/or bills on the subject, and/or served on highly influential panels on the subject, I would consider them researchers. Smeelgova 12:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

• You know what, I actually think I am changing my mind on this issue - I think I shall go ahead and create that list... Thanks for the idea and sorry bout the interesting discussion... Smeelgova 12:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I am glad you did. Also note the issues related to lists at WP:LIST, that advises us: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit." We need to work on a lead to this list that explains the inclusion criteria. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Same concern as expressed above. We should not mix oranges and apples, IMO. Having a list in which prominent scholars are listed alongside a journalist that published one article on the subject, may be violating NPOV undue weight, as well as original research, and verifiability (e. g. asserting that the journalist is a "new religious movement researcher" when no reputable source describes the journalist as such.) A solution could be found by providing sources in which these persons are described as such, rather than providing a source that an editor believes make him/her a "new religious movement researcher." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. All of the individuals listed have published prominent works on the subject. Do you have an issue with a particular individual? Smeelgova 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I used the description of these people as stated in their biographical articles. They are anti-cult advocates, are they not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Author" is too generic of a term. We need sub sections to categorize these persons properly and not mix apples and oranges. If "anti-cult advocate" does not work for you, please propose an alternative distinction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. But here in this list we have referred to everyone else by their profession and/or educational background. In this list we should subdivide individuals by profession/training, and not by their motivations. I will restore in the meantime, but "anti-cult advocate" is inappropriate for this list. Smeelgova 17:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

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

The classification is still not right. Most, if not all, the people listed on the academic sections have published many books on the subject. We need a way to differentiate between them and other authors that are not publishing as academics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

These comments are for everyone, but to User:Tanaats, I wasn't too offended, it seemed like you simply overreacted a bit. Others here have been far more rude (even since then), to the point of being offensive and insulting. Btw, I didn't say you should pull my edit summary out and post it here on the talk page, merely that you might respond to my reasoning.

It seems to me there are 3 issues in the introduction that I was dealing with:

1. Use of the word "and" in "new religious movements and cults". This "and" can be read - by those who would draw a distinction between "new religious movements" and "cults" - as a person qualifying for the list if they have conducted research on groups in both categories. Similarly, the statement "Researchers of new religious movements and cults made sure to buy gifts on Valentine's Day for their wives and girlfriends" could be taken to mean that some cult researcher might buy a gift for his wife but forget to buy one for his girlfriend too (or vice-versa). A better choice than "and" (or the slash that I used) is "or", which can be read either as following or not following a distinction between "new religious movement" and "cult".

2. Enumerating the categories in the definition: This bad idea has already been taken care of. The criterion is researcher; whether someone is an "author" or not, for example, has no bearing.

3. The third issue is the most important, and I have mentioned it twice already, but it seems as though no one has paid attention. A researcher conducts research. This does not include someone repeating what they heard from someone else, a highly biased "study" that does not follow standard procedures either by a cult member or a detractor, or other expressions of opinion that do not follow standard research methods. The only way to exclude such "study" or "investigation" which is not research is to include the criteria of peer review. Anyone who would seek to pack this list with people they like might argue that rather than each research profession deciding who to accept based on peer review, that he himself (the Wikipedia editor in question) can evaluate who has done work that meets the standards that could be called "research" rather than some less rigorous investigation. Besides the gargantuan hubris involved in such a proposal, it would never work because there would be varying opinions; it is a slippery slope from which there is no recovery. The only criterion that could work is the standard of peer review. That is the standard by which someone is judged within each field. Wikipedia editors cannot substitute their own arbitrary standards (which would be unworkable anyway). Let's not make Wikipedia into a farce; it is an encyclopedia. - Do c t orW 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a very sensible proposal. Otherwise, editors will be engaging in original research, by adding what in their opinion are "researchers". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately within this particular field, there is not much neutral available peer review. One neutral work on the subject is the book Misunderstanding Cults (book). Smeelgova 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Are you serious? Most of the academics listed have published in peer reviewed journals. And that book is certainly not neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

True. I was simply pointing out that no matter how the material is classified, it seems most researchers have an agenda of some sort. The book Misunderstanding Cults (book) and the work by Professor Dvorkin really outline the vast differences between some of the researchers and their potential motivations: there are those researchers that willingly accept monies and financial support from cults/new religious movements - and there are those that do not. The book has contributors from researchers on both sides of the aisle, and was equally praised as such, how is it not neutral? Smeelgova 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

For the same reasons you stated above. The book presents the opinions of authors, each one with his particular world-view. Note that this is a list. As such, the criteria needs to be well established to avoid "promotion" of certain people to a category of "researchers". For example Deborah Layton) is not a researcher, but a person that wrote a book about her experiences in a group widely considered a destructive cult. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. However, her book is used as a reference text at California State University, Gonzaga University, and Stanford University. Smeelgova 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Sure. Ir must be a fascinating book. But the author is not a researcher. Removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The author is not simply citing her own experiences, she performed research in order to write the work, as reflected in its presence at reputable universities. Restored. Smeelgova 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

The book itself was reviewed in multiple peer-review sources. Her research for the work, (external to her personal experiences) included research into the financial and historical documents of the organization. Smeelgova 20:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

No. She is not a "researcher". She was a victim that recounted her experiences in a book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

<<< There is no need to have multiple sources per person. One that establishes criteria for inclusion, is sufficient. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason why not to have multiple sources per person. It is also a good place for references as a waiting spot until articles are created. Smeelgova 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Sure. Then combine them in one ref. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to define criteria very tightly, otherwise there will be disputes about many of the people listed. In my experience with lists, which is quite substantial, unless there is a very unambiguous criteria, these lists become POV magnets to either "promote" a person (is the list has positive connotations) or "demote" a person (if the list carry negative connotations). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(I would appreciate not to be told to "STOP with your sarcasm" in edit summaries. That is inappropriate and a violation of use of summaries. If you are upset by editing these articles, take some time to cool off) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a break as well, and stop using so much sarcasm all the time in your comments and edit summaries. That would be most appreciated. I do not appreciate it when you add every single one of your edits and/or comments with "Thanks" when you clearly do not mean "Thanks". Sure. Ir must be a fascinating book. But the author is not a researcher. Removed This sounds like sarcasm to me as well. The more polite you attempt to act towards others, the more polite they will be towards you. The more sarcasm and contrite remarks you continue to make, the more likely it is that it will be more difficult to work with other editors. We have both agreed in the past that these relationships go 50/50. I have tried very hard to work on being more polite, on incorporating many of your suggestions, on listening to your advice - I would appreciate it if you would at least make a small effort to do the same. Thanks. Smeelgova 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

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

Maybe some clarification is due. When we say "Sure" we mean just that: I could have said "Yes". I do not mean "sure" as said with sarcasm like "sure... right..." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

I would certainly think that individuals who have lectured on cults numerous times at universities reputable like Stanford University, written about cults, researched their history and financial dealings like Deborah Layton has, should be able to be included in this list, without changing the name to something silly like you mentioned. This again stinks of sarcasm, with your ridiculous list of people that lectured, wrote, or commented on cults or new religious movements. Come on. Smeelgova 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

• And I do not think that you really do appreciate my contributions. I don't know if you even notice when I take your suggestions to heart and incorporate them, or admit that I sometimes see the light in your arguments. You just say "okay" or "thanks" or "sure" or "fine", instead of acknowledging that I am incorporating your suggestions, or even apologizing to you at times. You just seem to be happy that you have won, and move on. You do not realize how exhausting it is to not be the administrator in a discussion with you at times. It would certainly be a load off my back if you were more polite more of the time. Smeelgova 21:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Extraordinary response, Smeelgova, and most unbecoming, I must say. When I said that it must be a fascinating book, I meant just that, without a hint of sarcasm. When I said "sure", I mean just that. And when I say thanks, I mean just that. Maybe you need to take a hard look in the mirror and see the lack of good faith that you exhibit in your interactions with others, and the way that you pre-judge other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your attitude and degree of unpoliteness is just as extraordinary and unbecoming. It is certainly extraordinary that you never seem to rightfully acknowledge when I acquiesce and give in to your demands, or see the potential good in your arguments, or vocifersouly participate in discussion, or find more and more reputable sources, and back up my edits with sourced citations. Again, the golden rule, the nicer you act towards me, the nicer I will be. Maybe you need to take a hard look in the mirror and see the lack of good faith that you exhibit when commenting to others on talk pages. Maybe you also pre-judge other editors. And maybe you should watch the way your comments can be contstrued. I do try to assume good faith, but sometimes it can be exasperating. It is difficult to believe that when you say "sure" and "thanks" you always "mean it", but I will do my best to attempt to see that. If you behave more kindly and politely, so will others towards you. Smeelgova 07:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

• Looks, let's both just agree to try to act nicer, okay? I believe that you are not acting in good faith, you believe that I am not acting in good faith. Perhaps there is some truth to both of our assumptions. Why don't we both agree that we could both behave a little nicer to each other, and try to do so. I hope you can acknowledge at some point that I listen to a great deal of your advice and incorporate many of your suggestions, whether you see that or not, I don't know. Smeelgova 07:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
  • As a gesture of good faith I have removed the entire subsection in question. This will be a way to consolidate those who have done extensive research (in forms other than simply media/press,) into a professional/academic specialty above. Smeelgova 00:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Thank you, Smeelgova. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Smeelgova 00:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

So far there is only one proposal on the table for specific criteria for "researchers", which is mine above ( "Researchers": published, peer-review). May I suggest that other proposals for specific criteria be made, and discussion undertaken before more names are added to the list that would obviously be excluded under one of the proposals? - Do c t orW 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree to moratorium of additions until criteria is established. In principle, I do not have a problem with a criteria based on researchers that have published in peer-reviewed journals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion here, but no one else made any concrete proposal for criteria for researchers. If mine is the only concrete proposal, it should be followed unless and until overturned by another one. An additional page can be created for authors on cults who are not researchers. (We probably need such a page no matter what other decisions are made; only the most ludicrous and tortured definition would include every author as a "researcher".) - Do c t orW 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would propose the following criteria (all must apply):

• Scholars, i.e. people that have a degree in one or more related fields of research
• Published (meaning that have published within their area of research), excluding self-published
• Notability. People in the list must be notable as per WP:NOTABILITY guidelines

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Responses to Jossi's proposal for criteria for "researcher":

On point one: Master's programs are not designed to teach people how to do research. In order to learn how to do research properly, one needs more than two years of coursework in content areas. Research in the social sciences is very hard to do without commiting fatal errors even for those with Ph.D.s! A Ph.D. level degree has to be the qualification.

On point two: Are you suggesting we abandon the requirement of peer review? As I mentioned before, this may be a slippery slope from which there is no recovery.

On point three: I don't think this is necessary. If a well-qualified, academic researcher does a single, high-quality research study of a cult/NRM and has it published in a peer-reviewed journal, that by itself might not make him notable, but he should certainly be included even if he is not notable for anything else. - Do c t orW 19:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And why not authors of notable books on the subject, who have perhaps published relevant articles as well? Authors of such books often have their books reviewed in peer reviewed journals. Smeelgova 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

You may be confused about the meaning of "peer review", Smeelgova. As for the proposal by DoctorW above, I would agree to go with the "peer reviewed" criteria and move other individuals to other lists, if suitable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As the Cultic Studies Review is a peer-reviewed journal, these individuals have presented research in peer-reviewed sources as well. This goes to the counselors issue, etc. Smeelgova 05:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

No, You are mistaken. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think Smeelgova is right [4] Tanaats 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing that CSR is peer reviewed. It may be. What is disputed is to say that because a book has been reviewed or commented about in such journal, you can assert that the author has published in a peer reviewed journal. Certainly it has not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. Tanaats 00:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I found it very interesting to note that Eileen Barker, Ph.D. is a member of the Editorial Review Board of the Cultic Studies Review. Shows that they are reaching across the aisle. Perhaps there is hope for meaningful dialogue between the two POV camps of researchers, one day? Smeelgova 06:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Are two very distinct things. Suggest keeping only Psychotherapists and removing all others that are not scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

At the moment the only counselor without a formal educational degree in the subject is Carol Giambalvo. However, she is established as a researcher/authority according to multiple sources, and is highly published in peer-review sources on the subject matter. Smeelgova 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

What does "highly published in peer-review sources" means? The inclusion of a cite of a book in a peer reviewed article, does not make the book "peer reviewed". Read Peer review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In any event, she is also published in Cultic Studies Review, a peer-reviewed journal with numerous notable researchers as members/contributors. Smeelgova 05:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

• Compare to List of clinical psychologists. It is not common for Wikipedia lists of people to have citations after the name of every single notable individual, if this invidual already has an existing article that cites all of these sourced works/articles. Smeelgova 04:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Compare also to:

• List of anthropologists
• List of lawyers
• List of psychologists
• List of sociologists - Absolutely none of these lists, which all predate our list, utlize citations next to individual subject, especially if said citations are already present with tthe articles about those indiduals. If anything the only other piece of information common to lists of people - is birth/death year and nationality. Smeelgova 04:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

The question is not whether we have broken the rules of "the way it is done" on Wikipedia, as though that precedent is somehow inviolate, but rather, what is best for readers. Nevertheless, I will accept your point of view on this. - Do c t orW 13:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not appreciate reversions (sometimes repeated) of my annotated edits with no discussion. I have given good reasons here and/or in my edit summaries. Some changes are obviously needed and would have required no reason given by me, but these also have been reverted with no comment. Please be more civil. - Do c t orW 13:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Understandable, however some of these edits were a bit too major without discussion on talk pages. I have left some of these in, but I don't think we need "empirical" studies in the intro. After all, many cult apologists use the arguments that one must "experience" the controversial group before commenting on it, and this is certainly not an empirical conclusion. Smeelgova 05:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

There were only two edits that could be characterized as you have, and it is (obviously) not these I was referring to.

There is nothing wrong with "empirical". Every social scientist knows that participant observation is not the only kind of empirical study available. Arguments that one must "experience" a group are irrelevant. Research is empirical.

I have to say I am a bit uncomfortable with your casual use of the phrase "cult apologists". It is highly biased and polarizing, and would be offensive to many. I believe I read on that Talk page a comparison to "nigga luva", a phrase I'm sure you wouldn't use without quotation marks. - Do c t orW 07:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no similarity whatsoever between cult apologists and the n-word phrase that you have used above, which is highly offensive to some. The former phrase has been utilized by scholarly academics. The latter has not. As to your recent changes, I do not agree with them, as you are now tightening the criterion way too much. We do not need the word "empirical" in there for further clarification, peer review, notable, these terms are specific enough. I will attempt to modify as a compromise. Smeelgova 10:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Analogies always betray differences to the comparison. The comparison to "nigga luva" is cute because, like "cult apologist", it is jarring, demeaning, and offensive to the people it is directed at. Any "scholarly academics" who use it are being likewise highly biased and polarizing. It's hard for me to believe that you can't understand why it would be offensive.

As to my recent changes, your idea of compromise seems to be to revert me. (That's what you did in your edit you characterized as "compromise".) Is your definition of "compromise" agreeing with you 100%?

Your "minor syntax changes" include two issues that I have made arguments for and you have not. One of them I discussed at length, you have never commented on at all, and now you have reverted it a third time with no comment. I would appreciate it if you would be more civil. - Do c t orW 14:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And again, your analogy from above is spurious and highly insensitive. It would be most sensible for you to apologize for the usage of that term. Quite frankly, I am quite surprised at you, that someone with your education would utilize it. Smeelgova 14:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

• Looks like we are coming to a consensus on the intro paragraph. Smeelgova 14:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

• Yes, I'd say we are close. If you want to change the wording on the two minor issues left on the table, however, please provide arguments. I have done so. No one else has. - Do c t orW 14:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[I keep having edit conflicts as we dicuss this. This time it makes more sense for me to put my comment first.]

The argument you made on one of the remaining issues (order of "NRMs" & "cults") does not address the arguments that I made. Do I need to repeat them?

The use of "and/or" instead of "or" is misleading. I have already commented on this at length above. You have made no comment at all on this issue, but have now reverted me on this wording for the fourth time. - Do c t orW 14:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The article title is "List of cult and new religious movement researchers". Therefore, it is only practical to list the wording in that order. Smeelgova 14:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

The "and/or" clarification is also practical. Smeelgova 14:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

"DoctorW", please calm down. It is very hard to discuss things with you when you use bold and italics all the time to emphasize your anger. Please stop. Please also apologize for your highly inappropriate use of the n-word term above. Then perhaps we can work on compromising on some of these issues. Smeelgova 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

You have been highly uncivil here, as I have documented above. I am not angry. I am simply trying to point out to you exactly where your behavior has been lacking in common courtesy. After your using an offensive term and my citing another editor's comparison of it to another offensive term, perhaps you are the one who should apologize for actually using an offensive term (as opposed to my citing a comparison to one).

Btw, I meant to leave (while protesting) your version of the two edits I characterized above as "still on the table", and only remove the weasel words, but I discovered afterward that I had reverted all 3 minor items, and decided to comment here first. I'm guessing you'll just revert me anyway, as that has been your pattern. - Do c t orW 14:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so we both feel that the other individual has been "highly uncivil". I apologize if my actions were construed in this manner, but most of my edits were not reverts, but clarifications on further points. However, I still regard your use of the n-word as highly inappropriate, and an apology would help to move things forward. Smeelgova 15:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

You have been highly uncivil, while I have been very civil. Your implication that I have been uncivil is highly misleading. I find it ironic that "cult critics" like yourself complain about "deception" by cult members, yet you act in this manner. Even now, in the guise of sounding like you're trying to make things better, you attack me with the most vicious and pernicious deception, worse than any insult you have committed so far. By saying "your use of the n-word" you allow any inattentive or incomplete reader to think that I used the n-word in an inappropriate way. Now I am angry. I think you should be permanently barred from Wikipedia. - Do c t orW 16:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel that way, and it is unfortunate that you are upset. Perhaps you need to take a WP:Wikibreak. I know I do from time to time and it helps to relax. Perhaps we should all just move on, I think you will be more careful in the future about throwing around sensitive terms like the n-word, and I will try to understand how "cult apologist" can be misconstrued in scholarly settings, versus discussion boards and talk pages. Smeelgova 16:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

And you continue your deceit. By saying "throwing around...the n-word" you misrepresent the fact of my citing another editor comparing it to "cult apologist"; you, however, actually employed this inherently insulting phrase to describe NRM/cult researchers you don't agree with. Anyway, please stop attacking me. - Do c t orW 17:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I see that you were "citing another editor". At any rate, even that much is inappropriate with that term. I am not attacking you. Let's just all calm down, take a break, step back, and move on. Hope you are doing well. Smee 17:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Please do not add someone to this list unless there is a brief description on his/her page of the empirical study(ies) on cults or new religious movements conducted by that researcher. There is also a page for authors ( List of authors opposing cults) for those who write about cults or new religious movements who have not conducted empirical research studies. - Do c t orW 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved the lawyers to the "authors" page. (See comment immediately above.) - Do c t orW 17:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate move. You yourself have stated above that qualifications include "peer-review". These individuals have done so, and/or published in academic and/or respected settings. Please do not start now to contradict your own earlier statements upon which we had achieved consensus... Smee 23:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

None of these lawyers has conducted an empirical research study on cults or new religious movements. - Do c t orW 23:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

They have been published in respected peer-reviewed sources. Smee 23:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I have offered a compromise and retained only those that published in peer reviewed sources. Smee 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

If my wife gets her favorite recipe for fondue published in a peer-reviewed source, can I add her name to this list? - Do c t orW 23:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not respond to that. Smee 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

You understand my point, don't you? Peer-review (or academic book) is only one qualification. The more important qualification is that they actually conducted a research study. - Do c t orW 23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a new qualification that you are creating all of a sudden. We had agreed previously upon "peer-review" and "empirical research". Smee 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

How can you be a "researcher" if you haven't conducted research? Here is the first sentence of the article: "This list includes researchers that have conducted empirical studies on cults and/or new religious movements." This is not a "new" qualification. And it could hardly be otherwise, given the title of the article. People who have written but who have never "conducted empirical studies on cults and/or new religious movements" may belong on the "authors" page, but not here. - Do c t orW 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please look up the word "empirical". Smee 23:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

DoctorW., I am not aware of empirical research by Melton, but to exclude him would be very strange. Andries 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you are not familiar with his work. - Do c t orW 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

DoctorW, Not very, I have to admit. What is the title of published empirical research by Melton? Andries 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I had thought that we were interpreting "empirical" as defined by Webster's Dictionary:

1. originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2. relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3. capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4. of or relating to empiricism.

• In this manner, "empirical research" does not necessarily refer to specific studies performed, simply empirical observations given in a respected peer-reviewed publication... Smee 23:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

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

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.