Talk:CESNUR

CESNUR

David, I reverted your remark that CESNUR was funded by Scientology. I could not find any references for it and I strongly believe it to be incorrect. Andries 20:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To start you off, here is a Usenet post by Anton Hein (Apologetics Index) on the murkiness of the funding arrangements of CESNUR and of the academic study of NRMs in general. You are correct, in that it's not just Scientology paying them. But CESNUR are essentially paid public relations for the groups they write about. Compare Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and the tobacco industry. A reference supported by a study from CESNUR cannot reasonably be considered more than a press release with foot notes - David Gerard 00:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edits by Andries

Please explain the reasons for the deletion you made. Is it just because you don't like it? ≈ jossi ≈ 22:02, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi,

I hardly deleted anything. Andries 07:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. Where is the proof that they are leading universities? Free University is not leading. Not bad either. Andries 07:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. I wrote several times that the scholars affliated with CESNUR are not a unity; they often disagree with each other. An opinion of one scholar can not be taken as CESNUR's official opinion. Andries 07:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. CESNUR did not write apostate. They wrote ex-members who rationalize thier past. I do not understand why Zappaz changed that and he should explain his edits, not me. Andries 07:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't understand why you think that the University of Turin, the London School of Economics, the University of Friburg, and the University of Montreal, are not leading. ≈ jossi ≈ 19:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I do not know. The burden of proof is on the claimant. This is not an advertisement. I have not removed the word "leading" only from CESNUR but also from the Coimbra Group. Andries 21:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

???????????? Are we in a court of law, or editing an encyclopedia? What is this thing about the burdern of proof? ≈ jossi ≈ 00:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, Please provide references for the word "leading". Andries 18:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did: University of Turin, the London School of Economics, the University of Friburg, and the University of Montreal ≈ jossi ≈ 00:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please provide references for the assertion that all the affiliated universities are leading. Andries 07:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I will not. This is absolutely crazy. Forget it, Keep it, enjoy it, celebrate your "win". ??????. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:59, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you' rationalize your past, does not means that it is what CESNUR says. This is an article about CESNUR not about Andries. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:59, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

CESNUR website says,

"Information supplied by anti-cult activists claims to be eminently practical but in fact is largely theoretical and anedoctical, based as it is on secondary sources, from press clippings to accounts of families of members (not necessarily familiar with the movements) or of ex-members rationalizing their past experiences." from http://www.cesnur.org/about.htm

Please Jossi, if you do not have time to study the subject then at least do not hinder others who do. Andries 18:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK ≈ jossi ≈ 18:19, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

"CESNUR affiliated scholars"

Where is the evidence that certain people are "CESNUR affiliated scholars"? If they are, there should be some web page with a board or whatever. Or does the definition mean that these people have been at a CESNUR conference? If so, it means nothing. Introvigne told me that if I paid, even I could read a paper at a conference. --Tilman 12:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)s

The only affiliated Scholars seem to be Eileen Barker and Gordon Melton. The organizations started by Barker and Melton have many times teamed up with CESNUR. Unless citations can be shown to be "affiliated scholar" it is original work and should be deletedJohn196920022001 (talk)

The comment about the only requirement for reading a paper is paying a fee is partially correct. The research has to be an accepted by a executive committee, and Massimo told me that such a paper content has to be of academic quality. The person is not required to be a professional scholar. Once the paper is accepted the person must pay the conference fee for the paper to be locked-in for the conferenceJohn196920022001 (talk)

Needs reference

Di Marzio, however, later somewhat changed her views, left the Catholic counter-cult organization Gruppo di Ricerca e di Informazione sulle Sette (GRIS) and worked quite regularly with CESNUR. She is listed among the contributors of the CESNUR online encyclopedia "Religions in Italy".[1]

The reference given supports the second sentence, but not the first. AndroidCat (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary references

The links to CESNUR's site as references to the CESNUR article are primary references, and should be replaced with third-party secondary refs. AndroidCat (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reiterated. (Oh and if any editor uses a certain topic as a bannation, I'll have your nards for display purposes.) AndroidCat (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

CESNUR funding

Massimo Introvigne (October 1998) states that "CESNUR's only institutional funding came from the government of the Region of Piedmont", however in 2003, Dick Anthony, Research Director of the Center for the Study of New Religions [CESNUR] at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley California states in his bio: "These research programs were funded by US government agencies (the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Drug Abuse, and the National Endowment for the Humanities) and by philanthropic foundations (the Ford, Rockefeller and San Francisco Foundations)."[2] I'm not sure how much weight to assign that, especially with the implicit and startling claim that there is an academic connection between CESNUR and the Graduate Theological Union. AndroidCat (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CESNUR. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051219055614/http://assembly.coe.int:80/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc05/EDOC10470.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc05/EDOC10470.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Dead link is a reliable source? Juliano202 (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is dependent on whether it complies with WP:RS and not whether the original URL is still active. If we have a link to the original (eg the Wayback machine), which we do in the case of the source you tried to remove, that's fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

There is no independent source that describes the organization. Also A7 there are no secondary sources that describe the organization (not Notability) --Juliano202 (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You nominated it for deletion for WP:G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", which it clearly is not. As for A7, the claim that it is a group of religious scholars from universities in Europe and the Americas established in 1988 and with a number of clearly notable affiliated scholars, holds conferences around the world, has been the target of criticism from notable religious movements, and *does* have independent sources out there covering it... is way more than is needed to overcome the very low requirements of WP:A7. Also, before you nominate something for deletion, please read WP:BEFORE and follow its directions. It was very easy to find more independent sources describing the organization - I found two immediately and added citations. It is possible that there is not enough for notability, but that would have to be addressed at WP:AFD. You only registered today, and you have been disruptively trying to remove sources from this article (and from the article about its director, Massimo Introvigne), you have added tags to the article without explaining them on the talk page as required, and you are now trying to get it deleted. I ask again, as I asked on your talk page, what is your connection with or interest in the organization? (It also seems strange that you are unusually familiar with Wikipedia's policies for a newcomer on their first day - have you edited with any previous accounts?) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• I am an adult and before doing anything I study the rules. I also deal with cars and household appliances. Before doing anything, I'm studying the instructions. And this is normal. Therefore, I advise you not to try to manipulate the age of my account and the fact that I know the rules of Wikipedia. At least it looks strange.
• You yourself say that there may not be enough information to confirm the article. How to see this is obvious not only for me, but even for you. There are not enough authoritative sources in this article that describe the activities of this Organization. The entire text in the article is not confirmed by any independent and authoritative source. Authoritative sources point to a network of scientists, but not to the organization. This page is devoted to the organization. Therefore, there must be sources that point to the organization. These times there are none. For this I will put this Article to delete through discussion. I hope that you will not violate the rules on your part and remove this notation. I hope that you are not an entrusted administrator by Professor Introvigne. Don't be silly. Juliano202 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Firstly, I'm pleased to hear you are such a quick learner - but that still doesn't explain your interest in this article or how your only edits (immediately after creating your account) were to the article. I guess it might just be one of those happenstances?

  Secondly, I did not say anything is obvious nor do I see anything as obvious - I was merely suggesting that there "may" not be sufficient for notability (I really don't know either way). But there clearly *are* sources pointing to the organization, so it's no good continuing to insist that there are not - I even added two more myself, and already told you that. Also, my comments that sparked your "network of scientists" response was *only* referring to WP:A7, and the claims in the article are clearly sufficient to beat WP:A7 - A7 does not require *any sources at all*, just credible claims.

  Next, I am happy to confirm that I had never even heard of Massimo Introvigne or of CESNUR before today, when I saw your edits as I was patrolling edits by new users (as I have, actually, already told you before). So your hope is fulfilled - I am not associated with Massimo Introvigne in any way whatsoever.

  Finally, yes, WP:AFD is indeed the correct way (and the only correct way) for you to request deletion of this article (via discussion and consensus). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your answer, in that case, I will re-make an exact extract, I will re-send the article to WP: AFD. I hope the third time you will not delete my editing. Otherwise, your connection with the professor will look strange. And I repeat to you that on the page there is not a single reference to the authoritative sources in which it is about the organization. Please note that there is no mention on the Berkleycenter website that Cesnur is an organization. Literally it says: "Independent international network that engages in scholarly research and provides accurate information to the public on new religious movements" Juliano202 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please stop making accusations - if you keep doing it you will probably be blocked from editing, I reverted your latest attempt because you used the wrong process, that is all! And let's not discuss the sources here any further, let's save that for the WP:AFD discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. I'm not accusing you of anything, I just ask you to follow the rules of Wikipedia. If I made a mistake somewhere, please, I will be very grateful if you tell me in where is it Juliano202 (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes you are, it is "Otherwise, your connection with the professor will look strange". I have told you that I have no connection with the professor, so continuing to make these insinuations constitutes personal attack. See WP:NPA and do not make any further comments of that nature. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Listen, how many times do I have to tell you that you should use the WP:AFD process and NOT the WP:PROD process. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• I did not set out to offend you in some way. I just did not understand the reason for removing my editing. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Thank you for explaining my mistake. I apologize, I did not mean to offend you in any way. Now you have pointed out my mistake and I will correct it. - Juliano202 (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and as you keep insisting that there are no independent sources about CESNUR itself, I've just done a very quick Google books search and found the following...

• A Reader in New Religious Movements
• Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements - Page 101
• Cults: A Reference and Guide - Page 204
• Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements - Page 76

Those are just the first four links, and I haven't even looked at Google Scholar yet. If you start an AFD and insist there are no independent sources about CENSUR, you really are not going to have much success. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, here's the Google scholar results (about 1,840 results). (If you want English only you'll have to change your own settings - I get about 1,090 results when I do that.) Feel free to have a look through some of those. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I did as you advised me. Please check if I did the right thing. Maybe you still have some recommendations. - Juliano202 (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)