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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Here's my view:
Each entry requires a specific source citing the study carried out. Entries which are inadequate should be tagged. At the moment, many of the entries have a citation which does not refer in any way to a research study undertaken.
Please do not include journalists, lawyers, and writers of opinion pieces who do not meet both criteria: [1] have the requisite training in research methods, and [2] have carried out and published a research study in a peer-reviewed journal or academic book. - Do c t orW 03:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better if the list was sorted by last name? That would make it much easier to find a person you were looking for. Borock ( talk) 17:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Steven Hassan has published three books, but none of these are peer-reviewed or academic in nature. In fact, they are self-published under Hassan's publishing company "Freedom of Mind Press". His title of "cult expert" is self-designated one, as he has never born witness as a cult expert in a court of law.
His name should be removed from the list.
Zambelo ( talk) 02:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a double standard here; and the issue should be revisited - are we allowing self-published authors, with unrelated qualifications and with self-given honorific on this list? It shouldn't matter that he was cited as an 'expert' in the media, firstly because this isn' about 'cult experts', but about cult researchers, and secondly because the media isn't qualified to bestow this title. The fact that he bases his research on existing material is irrelevant, since his own work fails to qualify him as a peer-reviewed academic researcher. We may as well allow other anti-cult proponents on the list such as Rick Ross or Christian countercult proponents such as Gérard Dagon. Zambelo ( talk) 05:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
His writing did not go through peer review though, meaning that it is not up to standard, and has not been impartially reviewed. There is a difference between being peer-reviewed and having your work cited in another's work, especially if these works are not scholarly themselves. Steven Hassan may belong in an "anti-cult" list, but he sticks out like a sore thumb on a list of researchers who have been peer-reviewed in a related field of study and have been independently published. Zambelo ( talk) 10:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria is:
Looking past Hassan's rather sketchy training, none of his books can be considered research material. They are either self-published or published by a "New-age" publisher, and therefore lack the rigour necessary for his work to be considered research. That he was reviewed in scholarly articles is simply a remark on his status as a vocal anti-cult proponent, and not on his abilities or qualifications as a researcher. Should the list include any one who has written a piece about cults and been mentioned in other publications? Zambelo ( talk) 20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed the content because there was no further discussion after I raised the issue about there being a double-standard in the article. If Hassan and other self-described specialists remain in the article, then the inclusion criteria should be amended, and/or the article renamed to reflect that any published content is allowed (it doesn't need to be peer-reviewed) as long as it is mentioned in a separate publication. It doesn't matter that a person coming to the encyclopedia would reasonably expect to find these people on the list, it is about presenting the facts - a researcher is someone who's work appears in a peer-reviewed journal or book, and who has the requisite training. I have been through the previous discussions, but I don't think there has been adequate or enough neutral discussion on the topic - perhaps mediation should be the way to go, since this is clearly an issue. Zambelo ( talk) 02:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I have submitted this to a mediation channel. Zambelo ( talk) 03:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
What blanking? I removed a tagged unsourced claim. I am well aware of how to find citations, and I had searched for one that backed up the claim, however had not come across one. The sources I found said that Conway was "advanced to doctoral candidacy", which isn't the same as having a PhD. If you look at the article history, this is the reason I gave for tagging the claim in the first place. Please do not make unfounded assumptions. Zambelo ( talk) 20:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting I'm going around blanking pages indiscriminately. This is not the case - if you look a little more carefully, you will notice that there is discussion on the issue. And per WP:BLP all material must be verifiable in a biographical article. Again, you are assuming bad faith - perhaps you have a viewpoint of your own you are trying to push here? Zambelo ( talk) 21:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Blanking implies a destructive edit, which my edits were not. I made the edit after raising the issue on the talk page, and receiving no response. Adding material without discussing why it belongs as per the agreed-upon inclusion criteria however is not only not constructive, it is dishonest. Categorising my request for third party input as "shopping" is certainly dishonest. If consensus cannot be achieved here, then third parties must be part of the discussion. Burden of evidence lies with the editor who wishes to keep material, as such you must explain why the material deserves to remain in the article per the inclusion criteria. Also, per Wikipedia:Verifiability
I see that you have added a reviewed publication for Steven Hassan, which is good. Zambelo ( talk) 00:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The material I removed was (in the context of the inclusion criteria) not cited. BLP restrictions apply throughout Wikipedia - " Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to 'any' Wikipedia page". The information doesn't have to be contentious - it just needs to be verifiable. The only source I found that had any information about Flo Conway's credentials was her own website which says "She earned her master’s degree and was advanced to doctoral candidacy at the University of Oregon, where she pioneered the first interdisciplinary program in communication." This is the citation that was present on the page - and it doesn't mention her achieving her PhD. A verifiable source was requested, but not provided, and so I first a reliable citation, and then, a month later, I removed the unverified material. According to WP:BLP it should have been removed immediately. I think you need to take a step back, and assume good faith because your comments are starting to look more like personal attacks. I have read the policies, and acted well within them. My edits are focused on improving the NRM/Cult articles, because they are woefully incomplete, non-neutral and often lack verifiability. You say you expect editors to comply with former consensus, when you yourself are pushing to include material that doesn't agree with the agreed-upon inclusion criteria. Pot, meet kettle. Zambelo ( talk) 23:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The American Family Foundation publication Cultic Studies Journal was published from 1984 through 2001, when it was replaced with the Cultic Studies Review. PDF editions are available online through the ICSA (formerly AFF) website.
This list makes extensive use (20+) of CSJ articles as sources. However, the CSJ was not a peer-reviewed journal and it was not notable in the field. With the change to CSR and later the International Journal of Cultic Studies, editorial review and eventually peer review were added. Although even having peer review does not guarantee reliability or notability, the earlier CSJ articles are not reliable sources and should be removed from this list. In most cases, there are sufficient other sources available. In the cases where there are not, we will want to either provide sources or reevaluate inclusion.
In this edit, I removed the relevant CSJ references. In the following edit, that removal was reverted. As explained here, I am removing the references again. Please discuss if there is some reason to retain any of these references. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 23:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
List of new religious movement and cult researchers. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
List of new religious movement and cult researchers. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of new religious movement and cult researchers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I am in the process of expanding the article beyond being just a list. I hope this is not too bold. But let me know. Wolfview ( talk) 16:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Academic study of new religious movements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/rea/rea1.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.puf.com/wiki/Auteur%3AJean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Mayer{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.betteryou.com/curvitae.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Here's my view:
Each entry requires a specific source citing the study carried out. Entries which are inadequate should be tagged. At the moment, many of the entries have a citation which does not refer in any way to a research study undertaken.
Please do not include journalists, lawyers, and writers of opinion pieces who do not meet both criteria: [1] have the requisite training in research methods, and [2] have carried out and published a research study in a peer-reviewed journal or academic book. - Do c t orW 03:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better if the list was sorted by last name? That would make it much easier to find a person you were looking for. Borock ( talk) 17:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Steven Hassan has published three books, but none of these are peer-reviewed or academic in nature. In fact, they are self-published under Hassan's publishing company "Freedom of Mind Press". His title of "cult expert" is self-designated one, as he has never born witness as a cult expert in a court of law.
His name should be removed from the list.
Zambelo ( talk) 02:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a double standard here; and the issue should be revisited - are we allowing self-published authors, with unrelated qualifications and with self-given honorific on this list? It shouldn't matter that he was cited as an 'expert' in the media, firstly because this isn' about 'cult experts', but about cult researchers, and secondly because the media isn't qualified to bestow this title. The fact that he bases his research on existing material is irrelevant, since his own work fails to qualify him as a peer-reviewed academic researcher. We may as well allow other anti-cult proponents on the list such as Rick Ross or Christian countercult proponents such as Gérard Dagon. Zambelo ( talk) 05:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
His writing did not go through peer review though, meaning that it is not up to standard, and has not been impartially reviewed. There is a difference between being peer-reviewed and having your work cited in another's work, especially if these works are not scholarly themselves. Steven Hassan may belong in an "anti-cult" list, but he sticks out like a sore thumb on a list of researchers who have been peer-reviewed in a related field of study and have been independently published. Zambelo ( talk) 10:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria is:
Looking past Hassan's rather sketchy training, none of his books can be considered research material. They are either self-published or published by a "New-age" publisher, and therefore lack the rigour necessary for his work to be considered research. That he was reviewed in scholarly articles is simply a remark on his status as a vocal anti-cult proponent, and not on his abilities or qualifications as a researcher. Should the list include any one who has written a piece about cults and been mentioned in other publications? Zambelo ( talk) 20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed the content because there was no further discussion after I raised the issue about there being a double-standard in the article. If Hassan and other self-described specialists remain in the article, then the inclusion criteria should be amended, and/or the article renamed to reflect that any published content is allowed (it doesn't need to be peer-reviewed) as long as it is mentioned in a separate publication. It doesn't matter that a person coming to the encyclopedia would reasonably expect to find these people on the list, it is about presenting the facts - a researcher is someone who's work appears in a peer-reviewed journal or book, and who has the requisite training. I have been through the previous discussions, but I don't think there has been adequate or enough neutral discussion on the topic - perhaps mediation should be the way to go, since this is clearly an issue. Zambelo ( talk) 02:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I have submitted this to a mediation channel. Zambelo ( talk) 03:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
What blanking? I removed a tagged unsourced claim. I am well aware of how to find citations, and I had searched for one that backed up the claim, however had not come across one. The sources I found said that Conway was "advanced to doctoral candidacy", which isn't the same as having a PhD. If you look at the article history, this is the reason I gave for tagging the claim in the first place. Please do not make unfounded assumptions. Zambelo ( talk) 20:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting I'm going around blanking pages indiscriminately. This is not the case - if you look a little more carefully, you will notice that there is discussion on the issue. And per WP:BLP all material must be verifiable in a biographical article. Again, you are assuming bad faith - perhaps you have a viewpoint of your own you are trying to push here? Zambelo ( talk) 21:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Blanking implies a destructive edit, which my edits were not. I made the edit after raising the issue on the talk page, and receiving no response. Adding material without discussing why it belongs as per the agreed-upon inclusion criteria however is not only not constructive, it is dishonest. Categorising my request for third party input as "shopping" is certainly dishonest. If consensus cannot be achieved here, then third parties must be part of the discussion. Burden of evidence lies with the editor who wishes to keep material, as such you must explain why the material deserves to remain in the article per the inclusion criteria. Also, per Wikipedia:Verifiability
I see that you have added a reviewed publication for Steven Hassan, which is good. Zambelo ( talk) 00:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The material I removed was (in the context of the inclusion criteria) not cited. BLP restrictions apply throughout Wikipedia - " Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to 'any' Wikipedia page". The information doesn't have to be contentious - it just needs to be verifiable. The only source I found that had any information about Flo Conway's credentials was her own website which says "She earned her master’s degree and was advanced to doctoral candidacy at the University of Oregon, where she pioneered the first interdisciplinary program in communication." This is the citation that was present on the page - and it doesn't mention her achieving her PhD. A verifiable source was requested, but not provided, and so I first a reliable citation, and then, a month later, I removed the unverified material. According to WP:BLP it should have been removed immediately. I think you need to take a step back, and assume good faith because your comments are starting to look more like personal attacks. I have read the policies, and acted well within them. My edits are focused on improving the NRM/Cult articles, because they are woefully incomplete, non-neutral and often lack verifiability. You say you expect editors to comply with former consensus, when you yourself are pushing to include material that doesn't agree with the agreed-upon inclusion criteria. Pot, meet kettle. Zambelo ( talk) 23:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The American Family Foundation publication Cultic Studies Journal was published from 1984 through 2001, when it was replaced with the Cultic Studies Review. PDF editions are available online through the ICSA (formerly AFF) website.
This list makes extensive use (20+) of CSJ articles as sources. However, the CSJ was not a peer-reviewed journal and it was not notable in the field. With the change to CSR and later the International Journal of Cultic Studies, editorial review and eventually peer review were added. Although even having peer review does not guarantee reliability or notability, the earlier CSJ articles are not reliable sources and should be removed from this list. In most cases, there are sufficient other sources available. In the cases where there are not, we will want to either provide sources or reevaluate inclusion.
In this edit, I removed the relevant CSJ references. In the following edit, that removal was reverted. As explained here, I am removing the references again. Please discuss if there is some reason to retain any of these references. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 23:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
List of new religious movement and cult researchers. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
List of new religious movement and cult researchers. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of new religious movement and cult researchers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I am in the process of expanding the article beyond being just a list. I hope this is not too bold. But let me know. Wolfview ( talk) 16:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Academic study of new religious movements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/rea/rea1.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.puf.com/wiki/Auteur%3AJean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Mayer{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.betteryou.com/curvitae.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)