Talk:List of new religious movements

Definiton of NRM, or lack of it

There appears to be some suggestion in the foregoing discussion that there is some doubt about an agreed definiton of NRM or New religious movement, and that the phrase may be some sort of Neologism or Term of art. I should have thought that in the absense of an accepted specialised definition, readers would assume that the words are to be understood in their everyday meanings (as is indicated in the definition given in the opening sentence of the article), ie:

• New: recent compared with established religions, ie say less than about a century, or maybe dating from the resurgence of interest in spiritual matters in the 1960's.
• religious: "'an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, and to spirituality," as per the Wikipedia article; or "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods," according to the Oxford English Dictionary.
• movement: a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas:, again according to the Oxford English Dictionary. DaveApter (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that people might have actually looked at the article new religious movement myself. While I agree that the introductory comment in this list should probably be perhaps a bit expanded to specifically include mention of "sects" and "cults", the two terms which it basically serves as a replacement for in the academic world, and maybe the title of the article itself could be changed to something along the lines of List of cults, sects, and new religious movements to perhaps better reflect the recent history, including prehistory, of the term NRM, I still believe that the existing content guidelines, including groups prominently designated by academia or government as cults or sects, is still probably the most reasonable option. But, honestly, I have to think it somewhat absurd for us to say that a topic which is the topic in the title of multiple encyclopedic reference works, including at least some which were used to make this list and others Astynax has referenced above, is too vague or ill-defined for us to use, considering at least many of those published reference sources seem to have considered it clear enough for them to use in their own titles. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes John, I would have expected that too, but you are one of the two people in this discussion who seem to be trying to make out a case that the phrase is to be understood in some way other than the everyday sense of the words. The definitions in both the opening sentence of the NRM article itself and in the introductory paragraph of this list support the view that the phrase carries the normal meaning of the words: "A new religious movement (NRM) is a religious community or ethical, spiritual, or philosophical group of modern origins, which has a peripheral place within its nation's dominant religious culture." If you have any reliable sources that suggest more idiosyncratic interpretations, then perhaps you should cite them and modify these introductory definitions.

As regards your second point, I must confess I can't follow your logic. The premise seems fair enough: it is more polite and less loaded to refer to a Religious Movement of recent origin as a "New Religious Movement" than to call it a cult. However I can't see that it follows that any entity which has been called a cult (by however small a minority of uninformed opinion) automatically should be described as a NRM, even if it is not a "movement" and is not "religious". DaveApter (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My single gripe is with definition is "philosophical group". To me this allows for inclusion of groups like Landmark and most all New Age movements. We should narrow the definition to exclusively religious, or maybe metaphysical in nature (not sure about later). If we use a more narrow definition then I would drop my support to add Landmark. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, honestly, both of you are more or less arguing more that you don't like the idea that the word "religious" is included in the term used to describe these groups, rather than really arguing whether the group should be included in a list of groups which are called by the three-word term used today by the academic community to describe these groups. If that's the case, and you are indicating that you don't like the name used in this context by academia, then I have to think that your point might be reasonable, but that the better option would be to get the academic community to use some other term. But I don't think policy or guidelines allow us to effectively cherry-pick what items we do or don't include in a list simply based on our own opinions about how to interpret the definitions of the specific words used in the term which identifies the parameters of the list. In any event, I would appreciate response on the point of maybe changing the article title to include the words cult and sect, based on, like I said, the study of NRMs having basically begun as the study of groups called "cults" and "sects" and such before the specific term NRM was developed to describe the groups in a more neutral way. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not matter of whether or not I like the fact that the definition for NRM isn't settled in the literature. It's about whether we decide to use a definition broad enough to include Landmark Education. My preference is to include the controversy, but support for that seems low. So I suggest that if support wasn't for inclusion, then we shouldn't be using the most broad definition found in the literature. This isn't "cherry-picking" what group belongs, I agree Landmark fits the current broad definition, it's deciding which definition to use.

Perhaps instead of inclusion, we could add an additional section for Human Potential Movements and explain the debate. I don't know why Wikipedia should make a pronouncement not supported by the literature one way or the other. I don't support changing the article name. Adding "cult" and "sect" gets us no closer to determining if Landmark fits the bill and only adds unnecessary confusion as to whether a NRM can also be a cult. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not sure whether or not the "literature" supports a "broader definition" than that conveyed by the meaning of the individual words (I'm not asserting that it doesn't, I simply haven't studied it extensively enough - perhaps someone who has can give us some pointers). The inclusion of the term "philosophical groups" is the Wikipedia definition, which is not referenced to any sources. The following remark in the lead, to the effect that boundaries continue to be debated is reference to Introvigne, but I don't see any suggestion there that the term might be applied to non-religious groups.

Secondly, even if that category were to be applied, I would doubt that Landmark qualifies as a "philosophical group" - it does not have a set of philosophical tenets or beliefs, and it does not have members. It is a training company offering courses which promise improved productivity, enhanced interpersonal relationships, increased communication skills and higher levels of self-confidence.

Thirdly, I would have no objection to its being listed as part of the Human Potential Movement (entities that are not themselves "movements", can be part of the HPM). DaveApter (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

...Having now taken the time to study in more detail Massimo Introvigne's 2001 paper [[1]], which is the source (or at least a source) for the contention that NRM is a 'polite synonym' for the derogatory terms 'cult' or 'sect', it is completely clear that he was talking about the use of those terms specifically in connection with explicitly religious groups in the normally-understood sense of that word; not secular groups - for example such as personal development systems or multi-level marketing outfits - that had been described by someone or other as a "cult", possibly in a rhetorical sense. There is no indication there that the term NRM is defined to include "philosophical groups", and nor could I find such a definition anywhere else in my exploration of the writings on the subject. I am therefore removing this phrase from the lead, although of course it could be re-instated if anyone finds a satisfactory citation. DaveApter (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is your extraordinary claim that philosophical systems need to be excluded from a definition of NRMs that would need multiple citations to show that this is the consensus of NRM scholarship. • Astynax ^talk 18:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So where are the sources which support your claim that philosophical groups are included. Neither Brink nor Introvigne, the two citations in the lead, seem to. DaveApter (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You cannot exclude automobiles from a "List of wheeled vehicles" simply due to the fact that you cannot recall a reference you happened to skim over as having defined autos as "wheeled vehicles". I suspect that you are utterly aware, as I would expect most people contributing here to be, that most religions (excepting primitive religious practices such as shamanism) are axiomatically also philosophies. Many such traditional belief systems that are dealt with as religions also shun the "religion" label, just as do many new religious movements—from Pentecostals to Buddhists to New Age to LGAT seminars and their ilk. This does not require a citation. If you cannot find sources that explain the various overlaps between religion and philosophy, then I suggest you do a little honest legwork—it won't take much—to verify for yourself. Cherry-picking sources in a blatant campaign to substitute a PoV agenda here and in other articles in violation of policy and in the face of significant academic coverage is a non-starter. • Astynax ^talk 23:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a bizarre and nonsensical argument. Claiming that religions are inherently philosophical, even if true, in no way demonstrates that a philosophical movement is in any way religious, or that philosophical movements are inherently part of new religious movements. To claim this, you would need proper reliable sourcing, which you are explicitly refusing to provide. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all bizarre or nonsensical. Nor did I even hint that a philosophical movement is de facto a new religious movement. Arguing that a philosophy is a religion or vice versa, like the objections to including Landmark on the list, is a blatant red herring. A bunch of editors doesn't get to decide the definition of "New religious movement" or what belongs on it – period. WP:Weight demands that we include "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" and that isn't optional. Fans, members, volunteers, employees, clergy and assorted boosters of most every movement with an article on Wikipedia would be delighted to be able to blank reliably referenced material that does not fit comfortably into their narrow worldview or experience, and base articles only on sources they consider compatible. Attacking the first 2 pillars of Wikipedia in this way is, again, a non-starter. • Astynax ^talk 08:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Astynax, Please refrain from these personal attacks which violate the policy to assume good faith by casting aspersions on the motivations and integrity of other editors. You might consider the possibility that it is you who are "reading the sources in a POV manner". It seems to me that the nature of your editing and the tone of your comments here is more characteristic of someone with a strong emotional engagement with the subject than of an impartial and neutral observer. DaveApter (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What "personal attacks"? • Astynax ^talk 12:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Although the question strikes me as disingenuous, I will answer it. Just look at the last two sentences of your previous comment of 4 Oct, and the preceeding one of 3 Oct, not to mention numerous similar examples all over this page. The fact that other editors are alluded to rather than specifically named does not prevent it being personal. In any case, the purpose of this page is to discuss proposals for improving the article, not to criticise the presumed intentions of fellow wikipedians. DaveApter (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, so you feel attacked by a defense of Wikipedia policies and principles. So be it. As for the possiblitity of my misreading sources, I consider that every time I go to references. As for improving the article, ignoring or declining to report what eminent reliable sources say and proceding to blank or substitute editor WP:OR and/or WP:PoV is not making improvments—quite the contrary. "Get it?" 17:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

DaveApter, my page view of this page's history doesn't show that Astynax made any changes on Oct 4. The last two sentences of the comment made on Oct 3 were "Fans, members, volunteers, employees, clergy and assorted boosters of most every movement with an article on Wikipedia would be delighted to be able to blank reliably referenced material that does not fit comfortably into their narrow worldview or experience, and base articles only on sources they consider compatible. Attacking the first 2 pillars of Wikipedia in this way is, again, a non-starter." I am curious how you are finding offense to that as a personal attack? Are you blanking reliably reference material? Or, as a matter of WP:COI, and assuming WP:GOODFAITH, I would like to ask that you disclose if you are a fan, member, volunteer, employee, clergy or assorted booster of one of the groups at issue here? I'm honestly not trying to pile on here, simply trying to disabuse accusations of personal attacks before editors start losing GOODFAITH. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging up my mistake with the dates - the previous two edits of Astynax I was referring to are of course 3 Oct and 26 Sept. Apart from that, the rest of your comment is wholly inappropriate on an article talk page, as is the previous one by Astynax; I have responded on your respective talk pages: [[2]], [[3]]. DaveApter (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

DaveApter, your lack of disclosure here, on this talk page, of your participatory connection to Landmark; having voted in an RfC without disclosure; and your taking offense to the above requests to disclose; demonstrate an incredible WP:Conflict of Interest. On my talk page you cite your User:Page as evidence of your disclosure. Every talk page is an isolated discussion. Users are not expected to read the user page of every editor they are in discussion with, and you should not be taking offense if editors have not done so. I've been engaged in this lengthy discussion with you assuming good faith that you did not have such a big COI, and am now rather disamused to learn otherwise. Your taking offense to my request to disclose this information only makes it worse. On my talk page you indicated that you don't think your COI is that big a deal by claiming that your attendance and satisfaction with Landmark seminars is no different than a happy apple user. Attending apple seminares and owning an apple product are incredibly different levels of involvement, and it isn't for you to decide that your involvement isn't a COI. In fact, that is the entire point of the WP:COI policy: you can't be impartial about the nature of your COI. On your User Page (now that I've read it), you indicate that you've "done quite a few edits on the Landmark Education page". In light of your recent behavior regarding your lack of insight on how to manage a COI, I ask that you stop editing that page and take any edits you wish to make to the talk page instead. DaveApter, I really don't have anything personal against you or Landmark, you seeing otherwise and taking offense speaks volumes about your COI. I really do hope you take my advice here. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 16:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Having just re-read WP:COI, with which I was already familiar, it is quite clear that my relationship with Landmark (as a sometime customer of 7-11 years ago) in no way can be construed as a conflict of interest. I have been frank about that extent of my interaction in a spirit of openness and full disclosure, rather than because it constitutes an "interest". I see no reason to re-state it every time I participate in a discussion. The suggestion that no-one should edit a topic on Wikipedia about which they have first-hand knowledge is absurd. And - just to be clear - I did not "take offense" at your remarks (or Asyntax's): I pointed out that they are clear breaches of the WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. DaveApter (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

outsider here to this conversation, but I would have to agree with DaveApter (Note: I don't know what Landmark is or how it functions). But, being a Catholic - even a fervent one -should not prevent one from editing articles on the catholic church, nor be construed as a conflict of interest. If DaveApter made money off of more converts joining Landmark seminars and was using this as a venue for advertising, then you have a COI, but in the absence of that, I'm not sure I see a COI here at all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The issue seems to be more one of undeclared bias than COI. COI would be more fitting for a stockholder/owner, employee, volunteer, recruiter or anyone else with a vested interest in maintaining an organization's official PoV line. COI only came up on this page when introduced by DaveApter, and this is not the place for it, or for accusations of uncivil behavior, as such are distractions from the subjects at hand. Report any such activity to the proper venues. • Astynax ^talk 19:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I surly overstated it by calling it COI. I do however stand by my request to disclose it here, on this talk page. This happened only after comments about people involved with such organizations were declared a personal attack by DaveApter; which I found suggestive of a closer relationship than what was disclosed. Now that I know the relationship, I am happy to move forward and consider the COI issue closed. I apologize for may part in any escalation. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Dkriegls: FWIW, I was not suggesting the change of title with specifically Landmark in mind, but, rather, for the purposes of in maybe a rather broader sense making it clearer that the various entities included in Lewis's Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, and potentially other groups included in other reference works on NRMs, qualified for inclusion. I'm not sure if Landmark is necessarily the only group which would challenge its inclusion, but I do think that if the major reference works in the field choose to discuss them at some length in this context, that makes it reasonable for their inclusion here as well. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that your new title was specifically meant to work around Landmark. That would be a no-no. I am for broader inclusion becasue that's what the literature supports (IMO), and thus I agree with your title definition. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

Following the suggestion from the editor closing the RfC that we clarify the inclusion criteria, I suggest that we start by defining NRM in the commonsense understanding of the meaning of the words:

"A new religious movement (NRM) is a religious community or spiritual group of modern origins, which has a peripheral place within its nation's dominant religious culture. NRMs may be novel in origin or they may be part of a wider religion, in which case they will be distinct from pre-existing denominations".

Nothing that I have found in the cited references supports the contention in the recent revision of the lead that a more inclusive specialised meaning of the term (or one that might encompass secular groups of a philosophical or ethical nature) is proposed by writers in the field. If anyone does think such a definition is called for, could they please produce an exact quote, and evidence of general acceptance?

Also, I find John Carter's suggestion of rewording the title to inlcude the words 'cult' and 'sect' to be highly contentious. Whether or not an entity can be described as a 'cult' is inherently a matter of opinion rather than of hard fact, and therefore to include any organisation in such a list would not fulfil the WP:NPOV requirement to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". DaveApter (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I entirely buy the idea that describing something as a cult or secte would purely be a matter of opinion, I do agree that opening this Pandora's Box would start more fights than a dispute about New Religious Movements ever would. In the archives, these very arguments were made years ago about why the original list of cults was a really bad idea.

Rather than trying to broaden the list in a way that will inevitably produce argument, we should be thinking how to make the inclusion criteria extremely clear, into something that reliable secondary sources fully agree on. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion should not be based on what creates the least edit fights or avoids what editors find "highly contentious". Those things become less frequent when you base inclusion criterion on good referencing. We also don't need to reference WP:COMMON when there is actual academic literate on what a NRM is (with some definitions including cults and sect). WP:Common explicitly warns against starting with your personal common sense interpretation ("base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense."). While you might find John Carter's definition of the words highly contentious, he did cite the dictionary used for his rational instead of just trying to define the words himself. I suggest we stick to what the sources define as a NRM. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dkriegls, when I said there were problems in opening the list criteria up to being highly contentious, I was specifically referring to the ill-considered idea of changing the article name to list of cults. This Barker article points to the troubles involved in trying to make such a list - we can find reliable sources calling the YWCA, the Catholic Church and the Quakers cults. By contentious, I mean one source saying one thing and one saying another. While such a list might not be purely subjective, it would be close enough to make it extremely problematic, especially with the inherently pejorative nature of the term cult. It would likely results in disputes about many of the entities on this list. According to what I can see in the talk page archives, it's for these very reasons that the article became a list of new religious movements in the first place. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you @Dkriegls, and if you re-read my opening paragraph I think you will find that taking our cue from the sources is exactly what I am proposing. My suggested first draft above is a fair precis of what Introvigne says in one of the three references cited in the lead of the article. In my searching of all of the references I could track down, I still haven't found anything that supports the proposition that NRM has ever been defined in a way that includes secular groups. You will also see that I have (not for the first time) invited anyone who can find a reference supporting that position to quote it here so we can discuss it and investigate whether there seems to be academic consensus for such a definition. So far, no one has - in 89,000 characters of sometimes heated debate. Perhaps John could let us know what the definition in Lewis' Encyclopedia actually says? DaveApter (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If you read a bit further, you are sure to encounter many mentions that include secular groups that fill the role of religions in people's lives (the topic of the secularization of religion is a significant subject). Peter Clark says "These organizations are sometimes classified sociologically as new religions, though they tend to describe themselves in secular terms." (Encyclopedia of New Religions, p. 287). Sharon Farber wrote: "Years ago recruitment for cultic groups was far more obvious than today because extreme religious groups were easy to identify. They lived isolated from the general population, and the public had become aware of their deceptive recruiting techniques. Today many are attracted to organizations that are less overtly cultic, not overtly religious, and are often linked with the human potential movement, while others operate as businesses, with their tactics focused around financial success." (Hungry for Ecstasy, p. 139). George Chryssides observed: "For reasons such as this, many sociologists of religion operate with a 'functional' definition of religion: The important feature of religion is what it does for its followers, rather than what may exist in a supernatural realm." (Exploring New Religion, p. 14). Christopher Partridge states, "Consequently, spirituality is being explored in some unexpected areas of Western life (such as the world of business) and may incorporate a range of beliefs informed by anything from the world religions to ideas about UFOs and dolphins. Indeed, one of the principal characteristics of contemporary Western spirituality is that it is not a return to previous ways of being religious that are often directly influenced by trends in Western culture [...] This shift has influenced the way people understand and practice religion in the West. Increasingly religious authority is understood to be located, not in a clerical hierarchy, nor in an institution, nor even in a transcendent God, but in the individual self. If you want to encounter the divine go within. Self-spirituality tends to treat religions, and a lot else besides, as resources for a DIY spirituality." (New Religions: A Guide, p. 359-60). • Astynax ^talk 13:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't check the Lewis encyclopedia for a definition yet, although I could and will try to next week, but I think the call for a "definition" itself might be a bit of a red herring in cases like this, particularly because the definition in this particular case is still rather fluid, considering the field itself and the definition of its terms is still at a comparatively early stage of development. I think myself perhaps the better approach in cases like this is not to lay emphasis on the definition, but rather on the fact of the group(s) being described by one of the qualifying terms (cult, sect, NRM) in recent academic or other reference literature. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the sole criterion being that the listed group is designated a NRM (which by definition broadly includes cults, sects, new religions, new spiritualities, etc.) in reliable references. Attempting to concoct a narrower or broader set of criteria than that reeks of original research. The items on the list are there because reliable references say that they are NRMs; not because of any other editor-imposed criteria or synthesis. The only other qualification for inclusion that I can imagine as applicable would be to limit items on the list to those that have their own Wiki articles (PRO: items on the list would all link to articles offering a fuller explanation, CON: not allowing redlinks wouldn't encourage writing of articles on groups not currently covered). • Astynax ^talk 20:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the article criteria, I think that was used before, when all those which were included in my draft version which were red-links were removed, and I guess I can see the reason for that. It might be possible to add some short descriptions of some of the other groups without their own articles here, which is done in some other articles in wikipedia. But, given the staggering number of redlinks in Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Articles in print reference sources, even if some of them are to existing articles by other titles, I might favor not including a lot of short summaries or red links here, with the possible exception of maybe those redlinks here which have very long articles, of maybe 2 pages or more, in those sources. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thinking that we can make a reliable encyclopedic list without a strict definition seems like a very dubious idea. Yes, Chryssides, Beckford, Barker and most others actively refuse to give a precise definition of an NRM and say that doing so is problematic. But for our purposes, this speaks more to the problematic nature of this list itself than it is a license to expand what we put on the list. These scholars make it clear that are interested a wide range of 'movements' without concern over whether they all fit a strict set of criteria or not. But their goal is their own research - they are not in the business of working on an encyclopedic project, where strict criteria are absolutely necessary.

To quote Wikipedia's list inclusion criteria, "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." In this case, our reliable sources frequently say that there really aren't unambiguous membership criteria. Given this, it seems wise to err on the side of caution as far as what to include. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not as problematical as you may think. Sociologists and other academics repeatedly make the point that the term is "inclusive", rather than narrowly delimited with bright borderlines. Nor are there huge disagreements as to what constitues a NRM. For that reason, some of the other encyclopedial works have definitions which run on for many pages explaining the concept of NRMs (for example, the HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion's "New Religion" entry goes on for a full dozen pages). There are variations in typology classification/categorization among leading scholars and there are minor differences in where boundaries are drawn, but that does not rise to the level of anything like serious controversy. Again, there is no reason for that to be a concern here, or the basis for drawing our own boundaries. Our main job as editors is to summarize what published reliable sources say without editorial bias, original research or synthesis. John Carter's criterion — i.e., "the fact of the group(s) being described by one of the qualifying terms (cult, sect, NRM) in recent academic or other reference literature" — completely satisfies Wiki policies and guidelines. • Astynax ^talk 02:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

'Bright borderlines' as you call them are simply required by Wikipedia policies, regardless of whether scholars are giving them or not. And I think you are downplaying the issues between scholars and the problematic nature of exactly what is a 'new religious movement'. Beckford says this exactly: "New religious movements is a problematic term". Chryssides says "academics and anti-cultists alike are inclined to bend or ignore their professed definitions [of NRMs] almost at will to suit their own purposes". Regarding the terms new religions and new religious movements, Introvigne says "I have my own doubts that these categories do indeed have a future." Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, bright borderlines are not required by policy, whatsoever. What is required is that all aspects of topics which have received significant coverage in reliable sources be presented in a manner that reflects due weight in reliable sources – not editors deciding based upon their own OR to exclude significant coverage. How very odd to snip quotes from both Beckford and Chryssides from context in which each explains uses of the term. What a fuller quoting of Beckford would have revealed is that his usage of 'NRM' in the article is dealing with a subset of NRMs (i.e., those "which operate independently of other religious bodies"). "Problematic" does not here mean, in any sense, invalid. Chryssides, who uses the term, is advocating modifications to the definition according to his lights, something that continually happens in every field of study, though his argument is for a definition that is worded in such a way as to be more inclusive and cover both academic and anti-cult usages ("I cannot realistically expect to offer a definition that will generate a universally agreed and exhaustive list of NRMs. What I can more realistically hope to have done is identify a set of criteria that will clearly include all those groups that we uncontroversially and instinctively recognize as NRMs and which will clearly exclude all those groups that we uncontroversially and instinctively recognize as falling outside the category. Where there is disagreement about what should count as a new religious movement, I can at least attempt to identify some of the issues which give rise to diversity of opinion."). He clarifying his own usage in other works, which follows much the same reasoning as he uses in the paper you quoted, but without in any way invalidating the way others use the term (as if that were even possible). Chryssides then goes on to suggest clarification of the term "religion", so should we assume you are arguing against any use of the term "religion" itself, since Chryssides notes differences in its definition among scholars? Many other academics also favor a broad and inclusive scope for the NRM term, as has Chryssides, even as they personally apply the term in varyious ways. Nor has Introvigne's prediction that the term may be eclipsed in the future yet come to pass. Again, the supposed problem of what constitutes a "NRM" (or who/what belong on lists of "ethnic groups", "activists", "wonders of the world", "Roman emperors", "holidays", etc.) disappears when the criteria is simply to report what reliable sources say, rather than imposing narrower criteria based in editors' OR. • Astynax ^talk 08:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that organizations which appear in encyclopedias that cover new religions should be regarded as having incontrovertible backing for notibility and inclusion on the list. Unfortunately, we cannot make inclusion in another encyclopedia a sole criterion, as even the larger encyclopedias of religion only address a small fraction of the individual groups that various scholars categorize as NRMs. Still, inclusion in an encyclopedia covering new religions is solid support for inclusion in this list, and perhaps this should be added to the criteria as an alternative to an organization being cited as a NRM in academic lit. • Astynax ^talk 08:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

note: sometimes a compromise can be found. For example, you could start a different section of this list, for movements that are considered by some significant number of sources to belong, while considered by some significant number of sources to not belong. There are fuzzy borders for most things in the real world, and the particularly fuzzy nature of this one doesnt make it a good choice for a category (which are normally binary), but in a list you can be more subtle. I'd suggest a separate section for those whose membership on the list is disputed in some significant way- that way you are informing the reader without having to make a final judgement that x is acceptable while y is not. I'd suggest you also come to agreement on which canonical sources you are ok with using, and if there are specific source that should be excluded from use for this purpose you make a list of those too. I don't know the literature here so I'm mostly speaking theoretically but I urge you to consider whether a compromise is possible.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I personally see a separate section for religions and spiritualities that are accepted by some but rejected by others as unwieldy. Not all scholars include the same sets of NRMs, nor does the fact that one or more scholars do not regard a given group as a NRM necessarily mean that that an academic dispute exists (it seldom does, and more often differing categorization is more a matter of using different typologies, sometimes for specific illustrative purposes in a thesis or paper). With many scholars working in various areas of NRM study, I cannot think of any that rise to the level of being canonical (though in sociology there is wide and enduring respect for works by Bryan R. Wilson, James A. Beckford, Eileen Barker (who seems to have coined the term), James R. Lewis, Roy Wallis, J. Gordon Melton, Paul Heelas, David G. Bromley, among others). There is also the concern that one or a few scholarly opinions could be used to push undue weight. Most academics in my own reading do not make waves regarding the inclusion of this or that group in the categorizations and typologies of others, even when they do not themselves include them, and making out that there are disputes on this subject is simply wrong. As an alternative, perhaps we could just use endnotes to specify that "Some sociologists/psychologists/theologians exclude this from their list of NRMs". There are also sometimes differences between government sociology of religion, psychiatry and theology as to what constitutes an NRM due to the focus of each discipline, so flagging which field(s) have included an organization as a NRM may also be worth doing in some cases.

I'm not talking about omission - rather I'm talking about instances where scholars A,b, and c all say x is NRM while scholars D,E, and F all explicitly say X is Not a NRM. These cases should be listed separately. We don't oblige all scholars to agree and the list should not be a common denominator of all lists of all scholars (it should union, not intersection), but in cases where several RS contest its classification it should be called out in a separate section.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The question becomes, "Which NRMs would not then belong, or be argued that it should belong, on the second list?", given that RS scholars from various disciplines use the term only to describe groups on which they focus and in ways that support their theses, given that some scholars reject the term (including those that still prefer the cult-sect-denomination terms in their typologies), given that some scholars propose or insist on narrower parameters for the term than are generally accepted, given that some NRMs sponsor their own scholarship that tend to view their groups as not NRMs, etc. It may be as well to simply note in the lead section that different scholars sometimes use different criteria for NRMs (and occasionally an individual scholar will use different criteria for what is described as a NRM depending on the subject with which his/her current paper is dealing, or will reject the term entirely in one instance and employ it in another and/or will include a group in one discussion of NRMs and exclude it in another). Again, this isn't a matter of disagreement so much as it is an entirely normal difference in focus. That is why I called separate sublists "unwieldy". • Astynax ^talk 22:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

As I've noted before, Wikipedia policy requires clear, bright guidelines as to what belongs on a list or not: "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." As you note above, there are disputed definitions of the term - different scholars often use different definitions, and the scholars themselves are not inclined to draw clear boundaries, since they are looking at a field of study and not working on an encyclopedic project. Given this, it seems that the only responsible thing to do inside of the policies is take a conservative view of what should be included. I do agree that separate sub-lists are unwieldy - not only that, they go against our list policy of clear criteria. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are misreading policy. As I noted before, the guideline is not at all saying that a widely-used term itself must have a sharply delineated definition. It is absolutely unambiguous to simply require that all members of the list be backed by scholarly/academic references which mention the group as a NRM. You cannot transmogrify a requirement that the lead section give a clear statement of what is required for inclusion on a list into some novel requirement that, since an academic term is intentionally broad and without sharply defined borders, editors should invent and impose a more narrowly-construed definition. This is hardly the only term that encompasses a sweeping and inclusive array of subject matter with varying scopes. Just try to get 2 academics to agree on a precise definition or usage of terms like "religion" or "democratic" (Would you propose to challenge lists with those terms in their titles?). Moreover, I never said that disputes exist over the definition of NRM. I pointedly remarked that there are not disputes, merely differences in usage and focus, as happens with usages of terms between disciplines and among scholars in many fields. • Astynax ^talk 08:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the addition to the lede which effectively broadened the list criteria to well beyond the subject article. Given the discussion in this section, the section below, and at Talk:New_religious_movement#Unsupported broad definition, this expansion is clearly disputed. From my perspective, what may be missing are actual (preferably recent) secondary sources which summarize and interpret the multitude of primary sources we have as references here, and present those findings as a criteria for what a NRM is in fact. The use of primary sources throughout this list is somewhat discouraging, as it is placing the burden of interpretation/summarisation on editors here (as evidenced elsewhere on this talk page) - which is not what we do.--Tgeairn (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your blanking is again based upon false premises. 1. The "expansion" is the long-standing criterion for inclusion (i.e., that scholars dentote a group as a NRM). 2. There is no "multitude of primary sources" been used in the list's citations, and not a single primarary source has been used to cite any of the material touched upon in this discussion. • Astynax ^talk 18:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

As described above and in my edit summary, I removed the addition to the criteria because it is clearly disputed. The remainder of my comment above was an attempt to provide my (personal) perspective on why it is disputed, and what we might do to resolve some of the issues with this list. To address your numbered items - 1) Please provide some evidence that the passage I removed was a "long-standing" criteria. It appears that you added that criteria recently. 2) If these are secondary sources (as even the editnotice for this article requires) then what are the primary sources they are "making analytic or evaluative claims about"? They appear to be original findings or theses. I am reverting your re-addition. In the future, please follow WP:BRD - You boldly made a change, I reverted it. Now, let's discuss. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You are the one disputing a long-standing criterion and boldly blanking. My reinserting an explicit statement—which previously read "This list of new religious movements (NRMs), lists groups that either identify themselves as religious, ethical or spiritual organizations, or are generally seen as such by religious scholars, which are independent of older denominations, churches, or religious bodies."—because it was pointed out that the lead needs to have such a statement, does not make my addition a novelty. I suggest you do the legwork to go back over the article and talk history. Wikipedia does not encourage the use of primary sources, which is why the items on the list are to be based in secondary and tertiary sources. You are proposing editorial synthesis of primary sources, which policy forbids. • Astynax ^talk 19:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this piece of the lede, it's clear that it doesn't belong - it's not saying anything at all about what an NRM is; it's saying that the definition of an NRM is whatever a scholar calls an NRM. Remember the guideline "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources" - reputable sources are there to give the definition of what an NRM is, not for the definition to be 'whatever they put on a list'. I've looked at a lot of lists on Wikipedia, and they don't use self-referential definitions that tell us nothing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The sentence you blanked does specify the criterion for membership on this list. The summary definition based on reliable sources is also already there. Defining a term is not the same as "membership criteria". Again, editors don't get to substitute editor OR and synthesis as to what constitutes a NRM in preference to what scholars and reliable sources have denoted as NRMs. It should go without saying that in order to be listed here as a NRM, the list member must be listed as such by reliable academic references, but it doesn't hurt to reinstate it in the lead to be specific as to what is the criterion for inclusion on the list. • Astynax ^talk 09:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be simply ignoring the list guidelines. Membership criteria are based on definitions - it's as simple as that. Inclusion is based on whether they fit the definition - "membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources". Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines are not being ignored. The only WP:V to determine if a group or entity fits the definition and thus belongs on the list is whether it is identified as a NRM by academic sources. We do not have to second-guess the criteria that scholars have used in classifying as a NRM, nor does the lead need to do more than summarize the term (the first line of the lead links to the full article). NRMs become notable only through their identification as such by scholars; it is unacceptable synthesis for editors to identify or exclude an entity on any other basis (just as it would be for cults, sects, and other types). Editors are not synthesize definitions (egregious OR) to accommodate their PoV here, any more than it would be permissible for a group of flat earthers to come up with their definition of geophysics as a backdoor to excluding list members from the List of geophysicists. • Astynax ^talk 17:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines on Lists

The guideline at WP:LIST says:

"The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list."

At present, this is clearly not the case. As far as I can see the inclusion criteria adopted implicitly by Astynax seem to be something like: "anything that has been mentioned, however obliquely, in any book on New Religious Movements".

Furthermore, there seems to be a curious reluctance either to accept that the phrase "New Religious Movement" means simply what any normal English speaking person would understand it to mean, or to point to any authoritative source which defines a clear definition as a term of art or piece of technical jargon. If it is not to be understood in the everyday language sense of the meaning, then the lead should clarify exactly what it should be understood to mean, with suitable references to justify that usage.

In the specific case of est, the references mostly refer to it in passing, and appear to be no more than an expression of the author's personal opinion or assumption (or a reference to some other writer's assumptions), rather than a secondary source citing any established evidence or investigation. Also it seems curious to list as a "movement" a training course which ceased to exist over 29 years ago.DaveApter (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

So, your solution is what – to get rid of the list and any mention of "New religious movement" in articles on Wikipedia? What is unclear to you from the list's lead? It seems to me a concise summary of the various explanations given in sociological scholarship, although I suppose there are nuances that might be added from history, psychiatry, political science and theology disciplines. If that is the issue, then suggestions to clarify or include information from other disciplines would be better than attempting to invalidate a term in wide use in academia. However, if the objective is to narrow the definition so that a specific group(s) are excluded, no matter how many hundreds of references can be produced to support inclusion, then you are PoV-pushing again. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, it does not question the reasons behind statements in or critique reliable sources, although it can (without synthesis) report on notable differing views among reliable sources. I also have never argued for the "anything that has been mentioned, however obliquely, in any book on New Religious Movements" which you attribute to me, again mischaracterizing what I (as well as policy and reliable sources) have said. My position has consistently been that if a reliable source in the academic lit says that a group is a NRM (and there are literally thousands of them and no one covers them all), then that is an adequate citation to be listed. • Astynax ^talk 18:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Will you please just answer the points I raise rather than just coming out with a torrent of rhetoric?

• Is there a clear convention that the term "New Religious Movements" covers organisations which are not religious or spiritual as those terms are generally understood? - yes or no?
• If yes, what are the references that support that interpretation (and its general acceptance), and what are the clear unambiguous criteria for determining whether a given entity falls within this class or not?

As regards the lead, it appears to me that until recently it did contain a concise uncontroversial definition, until your edit here [[4]] introduced a considerable degree of ambiguity and obfuscation, and allowed for exactly the result that would "leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list," that the Wikipedia guideline warns against. My commitment is that Wikipedia should provide useful factual information for its readers. DaveApter (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You are asking for yes and no answers to your complex and slanted questions where such simplistic answers are impossible. I've not come out with "a torrent of rhetoric", but rather have tried to summarize what scholarship says. Had you asked "What is the academic definition of 'religion'?" or "What are the exact academic definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative'?" or "What do authorities define as a "luxury automobile'?" you would get the same sort of response. The edit to which you refer (along with the subsequent citations for it) was more an attempt to summarize the list topic, rather than an explanation of list criteria. Nor do you appear to be confused about the the existing criterion so much as being in disagreement with any possible criteria that would allow est/The Forum/Landmark to be listed. Is that not correct? Since you believe that the inclusion criteria has become lost in the lead, I've added a more explicit statement at the end of the section. We've actually been operating under this same criterion for years (unchallenged and evidently without any of the confusion you purport) and the requirement for reliable sources was already stated under the editnotice on the editing page. • Astynax ^talk 18:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds do you characterise my questions as "slanted" and "complex" - they seem simple and straightforward to me? If it were really true (which I don't believe for a minute) that there is no accepted definition of an NRM, this this would mean that this was an inappropriate category for a Wikipedia list. To use your own example above, the fact that there is no accepted definition of 'luxury automobile' is a sufficient reason that we do not have a "List of luxury automobiles" here. You objected strenuously to my suggesting that your citeria were "anything that has been mentioned in any book on New Religious Movements", and then you added "this list covers those entities which scholars in the fields of the sociology of religion, psychiatry, history and theology have denoted as new religions and new religious movements" to the lead of the article, which is very close to the same thing. DaveApter (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

EST

I have added an entry for EST (Erhard Seminars Training) which was merged into the Landmark entry years ago. In the footnotes, I've included quotes from solid reliable references, and can provide further if needed to support this entry. • Astynax ^talk 19:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Of the nine references you cited seven do not define est as a religious movement at all; they refer to it as being part of the Human potential movement (a categorisation which few would dispute, but most of whose groups are clearly non-religious in character), or 'New Age' (a notoriously vague and ill-defined term). The other two list it, but give no analysis to support their opinion.

The fact of the matter is that est was a seminar training which offered improvements in productivity, communication skills, personal relationships, self-esteem and goal-setting. Its participants included devout Christians of all denominations, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, as well as rationalists and Humanists. It was not a 'movement' in any sense of the word, having no 'membership' or 'followers'. And it had no dogmas, doctrines or tenets of belief. It was not a religious or spiritual phenomenon in even the broadest interpretation of the terms. Neither the interests of readers nor the reputation of Wikipedia are served by using it to propagate armchair speculation, even where that has made it into print. DaveApter (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, you either are not reading the citations or are intentionally mischaracterizing what they say. Since I provided quotes from eminently reliable sources in the footnotes, your argument is not credible. As the HPM is not itself an organization of any kind, it is rather a category in typology under which similar NRMs are listed. • Astynax ^talk 17:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading the extracts which you put in the citations. The two which do describe est as a NRM (Barker and Beckford) simply list it en passant with several other groups (all of the others being clearly religious in character).

"To illustrate rather than to define: among the better-known NRMs are the Brahma Kumaris, the Church of Scientology, the Divine Light Mission (now known as Elan Vital), est (erhard Seminar Training, now known as the Landmark Forum), the Family (originally known as the Children of God), ISKCON (the Hare Krishna), Rajneeshism (now know as Osho International), Sahaja Yoga, the Soka Gakkai, Trandscendental Mediations, the Unification Church (known as the Moonies) and the Way International."

"TM, Erhard Seminars Training (est), and the Rajneesh Foundation are currently the most visible NRMs offering a release service to clients in Western Europe..."

Do either of these give any indication as to what criteria they employed for this selection? Do either of them summarise primary sources for this categorisation? If not they they are not in this instance serving as secondary sources, but are primary ones reporting no more than the personal opinions of the writer. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of facts, not opinions. DaveApter (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply: Their criteria for categorizing an entity as a NRM is irrelevant here. We do not second-guess scholarship, we report it. Academic works are not primary sources in any sense. A primary source would be something produced by the entity in question, statements by members or opponents, original documents not summarized and explained by scholars. Statements by scholars, whose job it is to examine and synthesize such primary sources, are not deemed primary sources, which is clearly stated at WP:V. The only relevant fact is that the academic works cited do indeed categorize an entity as a NRM. • Astynax ^talk 19:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not being too perceptive, but could you explain how an "academic work" is to be distinguished from other types of published work? Wikipedia policy defines wp:secondary source as those which "contain an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." What are the primary sources which are being interpreted, analysed, or evaluated in these references? DaveApter (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The primary sources a scholarly researcher uses may consist of those mentioned ("facts, evidence, concepts and ideas taken from primary source") plus direct interviews, primary documentation (i.e., documents generated by insiders of an organization or persons directly participating in an event), artifacts, statements from witnesses, statistics, personal observations, personal accounts and similar direct and closely connected information. Primary sources are not to be used to reference articles on Wikipedia. Once a scholar publishes their analysis of primary and other evidences, it becomes a secondary source that may be used as references to cite Wikipedia articles. Tertiary sources (such as other encyclopedias) also rely on secondary sources. Reliability or secondary and tertiary sources is another issue; dependent on whether the work is cited in other notable works, the reputation of the author, and similar factors (which is why academic works, where they exist, are preferred over non-academic works). • Astynax ^talk 23:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

So are you saying that anything written by an "academic" is automatically a secondary source? I should have thought it was obvious that writings that cited primary sources and analysed them would be secondary sources, whereas writings that did not cite other sources, but expressed an opinion of the author (which presumably does happen from time to time) would be primary sources establishing that the author in question does hold that opinion. DaveApter (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A scholar's published works within their field of study are secondary sources. A work by an academic could still be a primary source if the person is writing about him/herself or about experiences outside his/her field of study. • Astynax ^talk 18:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Differing categorisations

So, if as you say, the statements of academics are ipso facto irrefutable assertions of fact, how do you reconcile disparities such as these:

• John Gordon Melton has said "a religion deals with ultimate life questions 'beyond the limits of science that we need answers to' and Scientology qualifies - but not, for example, Freemasonry or Werner Erhard's est training.”
• James R. Lewis says (in his encylopedia) "While not a church or religion, est is included here because it has often been accused of being a cult".

So which is it? Are Melton and Lewis correct, and Barker and Beckford wrong? Or are they all making legitimate expressions of opinion rather than fact? Or is the whole notion of a NRM so vague and ill-defined as to be unsuitable for the target of a Wikipedia list? DaveApter (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't said that statements by scholars are irrefutable assertions of fact. They are, however, WP:V references for establishing notability and backing for inclusion in articles and lists. It isn't unusual for scholars to offer different takes on any subject, and not less so for NRMs than for other fields. While you may want everything crisply defined and settled, that isn't the way science and scholarship work. This isn't so much a matter of how one defines a NRM as how one defines religion, with some scholars writing from the traditional Western religious PoV (i.e., with a structural framework of doctrines, membership, etc.), some writing from a broader scope that includes historical and world religious types (i.e., with the emphasis on inner experience and revelation), some writing from sociological or psychological perspectives (i.e., what roles does religion have in members of society, and how do various groups fulfill those roles), some writing from a theological perspective (i.e., how a new movement fits into established religious frameworks of doctrine and practice), some deal with historical perspectives (i.e., the roots of spiritual expressions, how religious systems develop and what impacts they have). Lewis himself (assuming that he actually wrote the entry to which you refer, and as editor, he may not have done) may not work with est/Forum/Landmark as a fully-fledged religion in the Western tradition, but he respects the opinion of scholars who do view it as religious and/or parareligious—he has edited several works in which the same entity is explicitly called a NRM and/or cult, and he himself has identified EST as a "client cult" in the "metaphysical-occult-New Age subculture" (Legitimating New Religions, p. 36). Again, focusing on a definition is irrelevant here and you may wish to pursue that in the NRM article. If you wish to propose deletion of this list and/or the NRM article itself as inappropriate for Wikipedia, you may do so. • Astynax ^talk 20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not ascribe ridiculous straw man positions to me;

• I have never even hinted that I thought that the NRM article should be deleted.
• Neither have I suggested that this list should be deleted - what I have been pressing for is a clear statement of the inclusion criteria.

Why is it that you want to ignore academic sources which state directly and unambiguously that est was not a religious movement and cherry-pick sources that indicate (rather more obliquely) that it was? DaveApter (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Your statement "Or is the whole notion of a NRM so vague and ill-defined as to be unsuitable for the target of a Wikipedia list?" certainly reads like you see the list as unsuitable if it isn't as clear-cut as you would like, even if there is no scholarly consensus for a narrow definition. Again, the only acceptable inclusion criteria is that reliable academic sources say something is a NRM. As to some sources giving a view questioning whether est (or any other entity) is a religion, I've attempted to respond to why a given scholar might so characterize a group in one situation, while dealing with it as a religion in another context, and why scholars in different disciplines use different criteria when discussing religion—and especially as the word "religion" itself means different things to different scholars (as I remarked, the Western concept of religion differs considerably from that of much of the rest of the world and historical religions). There are also many times more solid references explicitly characterizing est as a NRM than there are saying that it is not. The question is not whether est (or the Forum or Landmark) should be included on the list, as there is more than adequate support in the form of scholarly references, but rather if we should note that some scholars disagree with the "religion" designation (whether it is because they regard an entity as parareligious, not fully formed religion, or other reason) and if so, how to communicate that to readers (by a notation or by dividing the list into 2 sections). This has nothing to do with demanding that a definition be synthesized, and especially structuring it to exclude certain groups that absolutely should be listed. • Astynax ^talk 09:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The more relevant quote from my previous remarks would perhaps be: "If it were really true (which I don't believe for a minute) that there is no accepted definition of an NRM, this this would mean that this was an inappropriate category for a Wikipedia list." It should be clear that I am treating the lack of an accepted clear definition as a counterfactual. It is not a question of whether I would "like" a more precise inclusion criterion - it is that this is what Wikipedia policies and guidelines on Lists require. You seem to want to exploit the ambiguity to promote a viewpoint which you hold strongly. On the one hand you want to use some purported but unspecified "broad definition" of NRMs which encompasses entities that are not in any normal sense "religious" so as to include est in this List; and then to use the fact that it is included in this List as prima facie evidence that it is a religious movement, as you did in this edit [[5]] in the Landmark article. DaveApter (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you believe that there is an accepted narrow definition of the term, can you not even agree that if reliable academic sources specifically say that a particular movement is a "New Religious Movement", then that entity belongs on the list? It would be more constructive to drop the intransigent advocacy for blanking information that is based in eminently notable and reliable academic sources which clearly support a NRM categorization. Where there are notable alternative views, it should then be possible move on to determining how to note that they exist. • Astynax ^talk 23:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think I completely disagree with the notion that one source referring to a group as an NRM is always enough for list inclusion, particularly where other sources disagree, or in cases where a group's inclusion would constitute an extraordinary claim. Rather, a list needs clear inclusion criteria, as given by reliable sources, and the group needs to fit those criteria, as given by reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you are comfortable with EST being listed backed by citations from a dozen of the top people in the NRM field. I will say, however, that Wikipedia policy requires that articles include all significant viewpoints given in reliable sources, rather than to exclude those viewpoints based on editor-synthesized criteria. We report what reliable sources say. The question then becomes whether and/or how to note significant but dissenting views in a list. Lists give less information than articles, which have room to explain such subtleties. This has an impact beyond EST, as not every entity is dealt with as a NRM (or other subject) for every field and purpose. • Astynax ^talk 04:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's bizarre that you're trying to put words into my mouth regarding a group that I'm not even discussing. I continue to emphasize that we should be looking at what reliable sources say the definition of an NRM actually is. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but since EST/Forum/Landmark has been the focus here, I thought you would be satisfied that it meets the objection you raised, in that significant numbers of scholars have defined IT as a NRM. You said "I completely disagree with the notion that one source referring to a group as an NRM is always enough for list inclusion". So using EST as an example, it seemed to follow that list items cited to multiple reliable sources saying that something is a NRM are OK. The question that arises from your reaction becomes: Since EST is clearly categorized as a NRM by a multiple eminent scholars, is it not therefore suitable for inclusion, and, may this same criterion be applied to other NRMs listed as well? • Astynax ^talk 19:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I think the introduction would be a little confusing to most readers. A short explanation of what a NRM is generally considered to be, with a note saying there are differences of opinion, would be better. I also support the list being inclusive. If one source says a group is a NRM and another says it is not then put it on the list, but with the difference of opinion noted. Borock (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Some Entries Seem to Reveal Conflicting Definitions

The conversation about what exactly the criteria are for being on this list led me to explore some of the entries, and I'm scratching my head about a few of these. Some entities are so different from each other than one wonders how a single NRM definition could encompass them both.

For instance, we have the Rainbow Family, which appears to be a group committed to peace and equality with no particular or religious affiliation or agenda. They have a unifying philosophy, but not any unifying spiritual beliefs. Then we have Volunteers of America, which looks to be simply a faith-based non-profit/charity. This group looks like it has religious underpinnings, but isn't actively promoting religion - they're basically a charity. So you have one group that's religious, one not, one that has a unifying philosophy that you believe in to join and another which is basically a charity. I can't see what definition includes both of these groups. I notice both groups are so categorized by Beit-Hallahmi, but I can't seem to find what definition he's using anywhere.

I've voiced my doubts about including human potential movements on this talk page before, but Volunteers of America looks even more dubious here - I can't see how a faith-based charity fits any definition we have of an NRM. Problem cases like this underscore the need for a consistent, clear definition of exactly what an NRM actually is. Thoughts on these two? Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That you fail to see why scholars have denoted a specific group as a NRM is surely beside the point. That scholars have identified it as a NRM in academic literature is enough. If you don't understand why a "faith-based" group might be so considered, and that after reading the references, then I suggest you go back and read more of the literature, being open to the fact that your restrictive point of view as to what constitutes a new religious movement is not shared by the vast majority of the scholars working in sociology, history, theology and psychiatry. • Astynax ^talk 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've went and read the source in question and I'm satisfied that these two groups fits Beit-Hallahmi's own definition of an NRM. However, looking at his definition makes me feel it's more urgent than ever that we come to a precise definition and inclusion criteria for this page. Here's Beit-Hallahmi's definition:

"...a group has to espouse a religious belief system; that is, belief in an invisible, supernatural world inhabited by a deity or deities, the souls of the dead and the unborn, and sometimes other entities (angels, devils). That is the minimal basis for inclusion...a group has to demonstrate some organizational and doctrinal discontinuity with their environment; there is a clear intention; demonstrated in action, to start a new body based on a new set of beliefs. There must be, and there always is, a clear distinction from established religious groups in terms of a new leadership and new claims to divine truth."

I'm going to look at other definitions we have to see what we can come up with regarding a clear definition and inclusion criteria. Note: I'm not doing any OR here, I'm merely looking to list out definitions that we have available so we can be sure that the lead has as clear a definition as possible. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Where do you find Beit-Hallahmi defining "new religious movement" anywhere in the cited work? The quotation you provided only has to do with his own criteria for including a given NRM in his own book, which specifically covers new religions, cults and sects targeted to general readership. That does not constitute any sort of definition or exploration of the NRM term. In the case of VoA, for which the book is used as a citation, he classes it as a "Fundamentalist" religious movement. • Astynax ^talk 18:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You are applying an obvious double standard. The book is explaining its criteria for inclusion in a book of new religions, and if inclusion in this book isn't an indication of being an NRM, then why is this source being used as the sole reason for dozens of groups to be on the list? You disparage a definition from a book for 'general readership', while using this same source to argue for why VoA is on the list. Which is it? Is Beit-Hallahmi a reliable source here or not? I could listen to arguments either way - but you can't have it both ways. So tell me, do you consider Beit-Hallahmi to be a reliable source for NRMs or not? I will continue to look at what different scholars say is an NRM to see if we can reach a clear consensus definition. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No double standard. An introduction to a book or paper that establishes what will be covered is NOT a definition of anything. It merely notes what a reader can expect to find within the book, period. No disparagement. Books are targeted at different audiences, with differences in focus and level of detail. Again, Beit-Hallahmi nowhere gives a definition of "new religious movement" in the material you cited. • Astynax ^talk 16:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You are once again ignoring what I am saying. You are dismissing 'what is included in the book' as a definition, while endorsing 'what is included in the book' as to what should actually be on the list. Try answering the question I asked: do you feel that Beit-Hallahmi's book is a reliable source for indicating what is an NRM or not? Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I already answered. Beit-Hallahmi doesn't give a definition for "new religious movement" so skewing an author's criteria (for the groups he examined in a book) is irrelevant; doesn't get you anywhere toward a definition – it isn't there. As to your newly introduced twist, inclusion in Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects, and Cults is indeed citation enough to list a group as a NRM. The term "new religious movement" encompasses new religions, sects and cults. It is also invalid to argue the converse (i.e., that because Beit-Hallahmi or any other author has omitted a group from one or more of his/her works, therefore it is not a NRM). • Astynax ^talk 18:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

So, in other words, if Beit-Hallahmi puts an entry in this book, then we can consider it an NRM, but his inclusion criteria for what goes in this book can't be considered his definition of an NRM? It can't get any more nonsensical than this. You can't arbitrarily decide what you want to use and not use. Perhaps an Rfc on inclusion criteria and/or reliable sources for this article are in order, since I can't seem to reach any kind of agreement with you on either. I will continue to research NRM definitions in the hopes of figuring out what consistent criteria can be, but count me skeptical at this point that any definition I find will be acceptable to you. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing nonsensical at all. The number of NRMs ranges into the tens of thousands and no one covers them all. Again, Beit-Hallahmi doesn't give a definition of NRM, and saying that his introduction's explanation of his book's contents does not a definition make. You've doubtless come across definitions already that you've discarded, including those in the existing citations. The basis for inclusion in a list (any list) is that reliable sources say it belongs there. We do not substitute editor synthesis for what reliable sources say. In the case of this list, finding something to support your PoV may allow us to expand (not narrow) the explanation in the lead, but can provide no basis whatsoever for blanking list entries that are supported by reliable sources. • Astynax ^talk 23:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Beit-Hallahmi's inclusion criteria are certainly his defintion of an NRM, and you insisting otherwise doesn't change the fact. You simultaneously denigrate the book as a source so you can reject his definition, while supporting it as a source so you can justify the inclusion of certain groups. I have no attachment to Beit-Hallahmi one way or another, but I will stand up to arbitrary cherry-picking to promote a POV, whatever that may be. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are taking a quote out of context. Cherrypicking would be more in line with purporting to quote the explicit criteria for inclusion in the book, yet pointedly leaving out the opening 5 words of the first paragraph, omitting a paragraph break that would have prevented anyone reading from conflating 2 different things being communicated, and again leaving out the second paragraph's opening 8 words (oddly, the introduction's only sentence mentioning the term "new religious movements"). I'll save you the trouble of correcting your misquote:

"To be included in the book, a group has to espouse a religious belief system; that is, belief in an invisible, supernatural world inhabited by a deity or deities, the souls of the dead and the unborn, and sometimes other entities (angels, devils). That is the minimal basis for inclusion.

"To be classified as a new religious movement, a group has to demonstrate novelty in both organization and beliefs. The listed groups demonstrate some organizational and doctrinal discontinuity with their environment; there is a clear intention, demonstrated in action, to start a new body based on a new set of beliefs. There must be, and there always is, a clear distinction from established religious groups in terms of a new leadership and new claims to divine truth. Most of the groups listed are currently active and likely to be encountered, if not directly then through media reports or published references. Some defunct groups have been included when their activities have played an important role in recent history or when they provide contextual information for active groups."

[emphases mine] This work does not deal with the concept of NRMs at all (there is not even an entry for "new religious movement", despite the attempt to synthesize one). As it proclaims, it simply lists his sampling of certain groups he believes a popular readership may encounter. • Astynax ^talk 09:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've fully protected this page for one week per this report on the edit warring noticeboard. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sisterlinks removal

Please remove the {{Sisterlinks}} template from the External links section of this list.

The template was added by the now topic-banned user Cirt (formerly Smee), who created[6][7][8][9] all of the targets this template presents. Of particular interest is that two of the four targets were created in the past month, and all of them are being actively edited now by that editor. While the topic ban here on en.wikipedia may not explicitly preclude the editor from working in other wikis, directly linking to their work in this area while the topic ban is in effect is a clear sidestep of the topic ban. Tgeairn (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A note - I did not wait for consensus on this given that the existence of a direct link to continued editing in this area are a clear sidestep of the topic ban in place regarding this editor. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This seems like an odd request. Those links have been there since 2009, so where's the fire? Until you brought it up, the thought of linking to a Wikitionary definition for the NRM term, apart from the full New Religious Movement article, hadn't occurred to me, and it's already there. Why remove a template used in nearly 5000 articles here, or anywhere else? If you have a personal beef with the editor on another wiki, why raise the matter here at all? This page already has enough side issues. • Astynax ^talk 02:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The issue only arose here due to the recent creation of the target pages, and frankly because I hadn't noticed (read: didn't know about) the issue. The further I dig into the history and the sources here, the more I find. This issue is not specific to this article, but one has to start somewhere. Are you opposed to removing the links? For what reasons? Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: unless there is consensus for this request. The issue of someone editing other wikis is irrelevant. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A NRM definition

One of the few, brief and self-described "definitions" of NRM I've found is this passage from Eileen Barker. Most of the others I've encountered are entire articles that go on for many pages in order to explain the diversity of entities that are encompassed by the NRM term. This is already referenced in the lead, but we may as well have the full quote (Barker, Eileen (1996). "New Religions and Mental Health". In Bhugra, Dinesh (ed.). Psychiatry and Religion: Context, Consensus and Controversies. London and New York: Routledge. p. 126. ISBN 0415089557. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)):

Perhaps one should start by asking 'what is a new religion?' I believe that too precise a definition is constraining and unnecessary for our present purposes; several of the movements about which we shall be talking are not obviously new or religions. Generally speaking, however, I shall be referring to movements that are new in so far as they have become visible in their present form since the Second World War—thus, although Krishna devotees trace their origins back to through the sixteenth-century monk, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, ISKCON (the International Society for Krishna Consciousness) was not founded until the 1960s when His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada went to the United States. Some of the movements, such as ISKCON or the Unification Church, would be religious according to almost any definition, but there are the Raëlians (members of a flying saucer movement that expects the Elohim, 'our fathers from space', to come to earth) who say that they belong to an atheistic religion; and there are several movements, many associated with the New Age or the so-called Human Potential movement, who deny that they are in any way religious. These may, however, be included in so far as they help their followers to search for, discover and develop 'the god within' or to get in contact with cosmic forces, or explore 'the spiritual'; indeed, any movement that offers in some way to provide answers to some of the ultimate questions about 'meaning' and 'the purpose of life' that have traditionally been addressed by mainstream religions would be included in this broad understanding of the term 'NRM'..

— Eileen Barker, "New Religions and Mental Health" in =Psychiatry and Religion: Context, Consensus and Controversies, p. 126

This is too long for a lead section, but could be footnoted. • Astynax ^talk 18:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

narrowing it to only those NRMs that have become "visible in their present form since the Second World War" is too prescriptive. Much has been published on the topic since Barker wrote this (1996), it would be a mistake to offer this as a definitive statement on the matter. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, however, Barker allows for some variation here, and there is still an allowance for variation in date of founding or of coming to prominence in subsequent work (by her and others). You'll note the phrase "generally speaking", and that she observes that precise delineation is "constraining and unnecessary". The reference belongs to her exposition that follows, and is by no means a full definition. Nor does this list need to include anything like a full definition, as there is an article where that can be explored. I've merely provided it in response to irrelevant demands here for a definition and to challenges to the wording in the lead. As to the "new" issue,

Newness or innovation does not necessarily mean the introduction of new doctrines or ritual practices [...] it can consist of innovative well-established, time honoured beliefs and rituals

from (Peter B., Clarke, ed. (2006). Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. p. ix. ISBN 9780415453837.) • Astynax ^talk 20:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've done some work and put together a table of the definitions given by leading scholars of New Religious Movements. Almost all are exact quotes, though the Clarke quote is a requote (I can't find the original). I'm hoping this will be of use refining a clear and strict definition of what constitutes an NRM.

Scholar	Definition	Where and When Published
George Chryssides	(1) An NRM is 'recent'. (2) An NRM is outside the mainstream. (3) The NRM attracts converts from the indigenous culture.	New Religious Movements – Some Problems of Definition, 1994
Eileen Barker	The term new religious movement (NRM) is used to cover a disparate collection of organisations, most of which have emerged in their present form since the 1950s, and most of which offer the kind of answer to questions of a fundamental religious, spiritual or philosophical nature.	New Religious Movements, 1989
J. Gordon Melton	New religions are religious groups that exist socially and culturally on the fringe, differ significantly in belief and practice from the dominant religious institutions of the culture in which they are located, and have minimum ties to and allies within the dominant government, religious, and intellectual structures of the society in which they operate.	Introducing and Defining the Concept of a New Religion, from Bromley’s Teaching New Religious Movements, 2007
Encyclopedia Britannica - Murray Rubinstein	NRMs are characterized by a number of shared traits. These religions are, by definition, “new”; they offer innovative religious responses to the conditions of the modern world, despite the fact that most NRMs represent themselves as rooted in ancient traditions. NRMs are also usually regarded as “countercultural”; that is, they are perceived (by others and by themselves) to be alternatives to the mainstream religions of Western society, especially Christianity in its normative forms. These movements are often highly eclectic, pluralistic, and syncretistic; they freely combine doctrines and practices from diverse sources within their belief systems.	Encyclopedia Britannica
Peter Clarke	Religious groups which have emerged in North America and Europe since 1945.	New Religious Movements in Western Europe, 1997
Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi	A group has to esouse a religious belief system; that is, belief in an invisible, supernatural world inhabited by a deity or deities, the souls of the dead and the unborn, and sometimes other entities (angles, devils).	The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects, and Cults, 1993
Massimo Introvigne	Introvigne gives no definition and instead proposes to simply abandon the terms "new religious movements" and "new religions", and to rather discuss "families" of religious and spiritual groups.	The future of Religion and the Future of New Religions, 2001

Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)