Talk:List of new religious movements

Removing Human Potential Movement entry

I removed Landmark Education from the list for the following reasons:

• It is listed as a Human Potential Movement. Our article on the HPM is clear that these movements are not religious in nature or intent, rather that they are based in existentialism and humanism. Even this categorization of Landmark is dubious, as it is based on a citation for est which is not the same organization (according to the same source).
• The reference to Psychiatry and Religion: Context, Consensus and Controversies again is referring to est. Although this reference notes that est is now known as "The Landmark Forum", there is no such organization and that claim is refuted by the other sources provided (particularly Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions).
• The reference to Social Theory and Religion by James A. Beckford is not valid. That source does not contain the word "Landmark" at all.
• Similarly, the Encyclopedia of American religions does not contain "Landmark" (in context) or "Forum" (in context) at all. The only references to these words is out of context (ie. "The landmark decision in..." or "... provided a forum for individuals to...").
• Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions clearly states that Landmark Education Corporation (which other unlisted sources indicate is a predecessor to Landmark Education) was a new company, separate from est with different goals and methods.
• Our article for Landmark Education provides a number of additional third-party sources which clearly state that it is not a religion nor is it a religious movement.
• I have reviewed the sources from our article for Landmark Education, the ones contained in this article, and others that I could immediately find and was unable to find any reliable sources that stated Landmark Education is a religious movement or religion. There only appears to be a tenuous (at best) chain of association from prior to est to est to the former staff of est to Landmark.

There was a previous discussion of this entry at Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_1#Companies_Don.27t_Belong_On_This_List. That discussion appears to have missed the issues above, as well as containing a misstatement or misunderstanding of WP:SELFSOURCE. If a company explicitly says that they are not a religion, then reliable sources would be needed to refute that claim. Those sources don't exist here, and if such sources exist then that disagreement would be best described at the primary article (Landmark Education in this case). Tgeairn (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This organization (it doesn't matter that it is a corporation, as many religious organizations are incorporated) appears in references dealing with NRMs, and so it is appropriate for inclusion on this list. That it does not claim to be "a religion" is irrelevant (it is not the only religious movement to do so). That an organization has gone through several iterations also is irrelevant, and it is obfuscating to challenge sources as being relevant to the organization in the title simply because of corporate name and structuring changes over the years. • Astynax ^talk 20:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with User:Astynax's comments above in general, but in this instance that isn't the question. The references are referring to a separate entity (est) and est is not Landmark Education. This isn't about name changes or obfuscation; there are any number of reliable sources that clearly state that Landmark Education is not the same entity, is not run by the same people, has a different structure, offers different products, and has different goals.

That Landmark is referred to in the only reliable sources as a Human Potential Movement (or not as any "movement" at all) is the key point here. HPMs are by definition not religious movements (see here or here).

I will wait for any additional comments before removing again.

Thank you for your comments. Tgeairn (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the dictionary definitions, for the purposes of NRMs, they are classed together with other "Human Potential" and "Self Religion" philosophies/spiritualities. I have added a few other references in works on NRMs. Some references regard them as religious movements, some do not, and some place them somewhere in-between (as does Chryssides, who explains his reasoning in Exploring New Religions pp. 312-313: "Although I have argued that not all the group covered within this chapter actually count as religions, the examples I have studied are nonetheless useful, since these case studies have aroused much comment on the part of anti-cult critics. Moreover, they certainly all possess an important spiritual dimension, and provide useful studies for determining where the edges of religion lie."). You are welcome to do an RfC prior to deleting sourced material, but as the organization's iterations are covered in NRM literature, there is no reason it cannot be included in this list. • Astynax ^talk 08:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The case for Landmark as NRM seems extremely weak. The sources provided above by Astynax don't support the contention of Landmark as an NRM at all. Chryssides states explicitly that Landmark is "not religious", and as the quote above mentions, he merely found it 'useful to study'. Aubers only discusses the est training, while the Kemp piece is about groups that are 'new age', which explicitly includes human potential movements - he describes Landmark as a group for self-actualization, not one with religious traits. Meanwhile, it seems that every other member of this list is described explicitly as being a religion, and no other human potential movement groups are on this list, a strong sign that Landmark doesn't actually belong here. Add into this that there are numerous other reliable sources saying Landmark is not religious, and it seems fairly clear that it doesn't belong on this list. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You are free to draw your own conclusions of course, as you did above. However, we do follow in general the independent reliable sources, like Chryssides, in our content. If you believe that this subject doesn't deserve inclusion, I could certainly see having est listed, on the basis that it is listed in the relevant reference works. The question here is basically how one defines "new religious movement" in general - there really at this point is no generally accepted clearcut definition of the term. That being the case, basically, our best basis for determining what to do is to follow the lead of well regarded reference books, like Chryssides, on the topic, and include what they include. "Religion" might well be a bit of a misnomer for several groups here, but if they are called NRMs, a phrase which includes the word "religion," then they are NRMs. If one wanted to file an RfC on this topic, they certainly could, but I tend to think from prior experience that the conclusion drawn from such a discussion would be to follow the lead of the reference sources. I can and will start shortly in gathering together lists of topics included as separate articles in the various reference works relating to NRMs readily available to me into something similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lutheranism/Encyclopedic content, and I tend to think that the editors here would generally agree that we can and generally should follow their leads regarding such matters. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the assessment that words such as "religion" and "spirituality" are defined by various scholars in more restrictive ways than others. Some academic writers impose tests such as membership, regular congregational gatherings and/or expected adherence to a creed, and yet others refuse such limitations that would exclude many bona fide religious movements past and present (e.g., almost all of the mystery religions of late antiquity, which consisted of little more than a single, directed spiritual/relevatory experience or rite, and which could differ only superficially from many modern fests, seminars and conferences with spiritual, motivational and life-changing components and/or claims but little in the way of other formal structure or belief requirements). As John Carter said, in this sort of situation we follow the sources rather than synthesizing a Wiki position. I did not add this organization to the list, but on the basis that the organization in its various iterations is widely discussed in NRM literature, the mere fact that it is included by reliable sources makes it an appropriate entry. Moreover, this is a list, not an article. Anyone questioning the religious nature of an organization or movement may easily (and will likely) click over to the article where there is more information on the subject. • Astynax ^talk 19:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the reliable sourcing we have does NOT give weight to Landmark as an LRM at all. The sum total of evidence appears to be one book that puts it on a list (while at the same time explicitly stating that it's not a religion and really only on the list because the author is apparently intrigued by it). We have another source cited that's about the 'New Age' and isn't making any religious claims at all, and we have other reliable sources that explicitly state that it's not a religion or religious. Throw in the fact that no other human potential movement groups (or groups from something such as the list of Large Group Awareness Trainings) are on the list, I wonder why this is even up for debate. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Although I would have to check the page history, I would think that there is a very real chance that, when this article was created, est was a redirect to Landmark, and that someone (either myself or someone else) fixed the link to more directly link to the extant article. I note that there has been a proposal to merge est into Landmark for about a year now, which leads me to think that perhaps there was no separate article at that time. I am listing the proposed merger on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion page now. For what its worth, the other groups might not be on the list because I remember someone editing out all those other groups which at the time didn't have separate articles yet, and on that basis believe that they may have in fact been included by me in the first draft, but edited out as redlinks thereafter. I am in the process of going though the lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Articles in print reference sources to include all the articles from the various reference sources I currently have easy access to, and the relative length those topics have in those reference works, and that might help a bit. John Carter (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

A look at the pages show that both the est and Landmark articles were created in 2002, years before this list existed. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

A look at what Chryssides actually says about est in 'New Religous Movements' would seem to support the contention that est (and Landmark) should not be charactrised as religious, or appear in this list. "Those who have undergone est or The Forum do not belong to a community of followers, they are simply people who have received a particular type of training... there is no ritual, no festivals, no religous calendar to punctuate the year, and the principle life-cycle events of birth, marriage and death are not celebrated within the organisation... participants are free to follow their own religion, or to have none." DaveApter (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Which exactly describes some of the single-experience oriented religions of antiquity ("ritual" during an intitiation or teaching process is in the eye of the beholder). Chryssides is hardly the only NRM reference to include est/the Forum/Landmark/Erhard. Chryssides also acknowledges that academics and others classify it and other Human Potential Movements as examples of new religions (Chryssides, Exploring New Religions pp. 278–280, 312.) and gives this as the reason why he regularly includes it in his own various works, even if he personally has some reservations regarding according est and Landmark "full status as religious organizations" (ibid p. 314). There are certainly differing opinions among academics as to what constitutes a religious movement. Again, for the purposes of this list, it is enough that some scholars do indeed regard est/Landmark as a NRM. Readers can and will click over to the actual articles on each group, where NPoV information should be available regarding the reasonings behind both the religious classification and non-classification in the eyes of various academics. • Astynax ^talk 18:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The key issue is whether this page is intended to provide useful accurate information for readers of Wikipedia, or to perpetuate confusions and misconceptions. Although some of the sources discuss est (mostly in a tangential manner), and in some cases actually mention Landmark by name, they do not unequivocably state that either are religious in nature; rather the reverse. The numerous well-sourced endorsements of these training programs by ministers, bishops, rabbis and authorities of many religions clearly demonstrate their non-religious nature. According to The Financial Times, "Erhard’s influence extends far beyond the couple of million people who have done his courses: there is hardly a self-help book or a management training programme that does not borrow some of his principles." So should all of these management training programs and self-help courses also be listed as New Religious Movements? Surely some common sense is called for? DaveApter (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If they are included as NRM in reliable sources, the answer is clearly "Yes, they should be listed as NRMs here and details given,in a manner that reflects the weight of sources, should be given within each organization's article." This is policy; not a option that we editors can disregard because we have a different take than some of the sources. • Astynax ^talk 07:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the whole point - I don't see that Landmark is unequivocably identified as a NRM in these sources. I have already quoted at length from Chryssides above, and this clearly indicates that the categorisation is marginal at best. Nwlaw63 has already refuted Kemp and Aubers as sources for the claim. Are there any others that are actually categorical? In an earlier discussion on this topic one editor suggested (presumably toungue-in-cheek) that the page should be titled 'List of organisations that have sometime been described as new religious movements'. Unless you are going to change to that name it is clear that readers of Wikipedia will expect that organisations listed here clearly and unambiguously fall into this category, not ones whose case for inclusion is virtually non-existent. Thank you for referring me to the WP:WEIGHT policy, with which I am already familiar, and I see nothing there which compels editors to override their discrimination and commonsense. May I ask to you declare whether or not you have a conflict of interest regarding this topic? Do you have any experience or strong personal opinion regarding est, or Erhard or Landmark which might colour your judgement in the matter? Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be reading the sources, including Chryssides, in a PoV manner. Chryssides gives a spectrum of views of Landmark: everything from those who apply the "cult" label, to scholars who hold it is a NRM, to Landmark's denial of the "relgious" label, to his own view that it holds some religious elements even though he personally doesn't see it as a full-fledged religion. He gives some of the sources for scholarship which does regard it as a full-fledged religion, which you seem to ignore. Nwlaw63 has similarly ignored the references to scholarship that regards Landmark as a NRM in the other references. Just because Chryssides or another author disagrees with the conclusions of other scholars does not overturn those other academic views, it rather reinforces that there exists a variety of categorizations used in scholarship. Other entities, including government departments, have classed Landmark as an NRM and I'm beginning to wonder why this gets no mention at all in the article and the whole religious issue is given short-shrift. I decline to respond to your final 2 questions. If you believe that I have a COI, then you have the option to make a report on the appropriate noticeboard, but you must surely be aware that such incivil implications are not appropriate for discussion on talk pages. • Astynax ^talk 18:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if you took offence at my questions as none was intended. I still fail to see why you should have done. If you have no axe to grind, then stating so should present no problem. If on the other had you did have strong preconceived opinions on the subject then it would be honest to disclose them, and this would also support you in holding your own viewpoint at arm's length while editing. Perhaps it comes as a surprise to you, but it occurs to me as though you are "reading the sources in a PoV manner". Insofar as they mention Landmark, they do so with stong qualification. It is clearly an anomolous entry in a list that otherwise contains groups that are uncontroversially religious in nature. DaveApter (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Statements such as these are a mischaracterization of both the cited sources and of scholarly views. Chryssides, who personally has reservations that Landmark represents a "full-fledged" religious movement nevertheless admits to it having some characteristics of a NRM. Moreover, and the reason he is cited, he references a variety of scholarly viewpoints, some of which do indeed hold it fully to be an NRM. • Astynax ^talk 07:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment regarding reliable sourcing: The impression being given by some editors here is that Landmark and/or the Human Potential Movement are not considered NRMs in the scholarly literature. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I noted above, there exists a wide variety of positions taken by eminent scholars which include everything from classifying them as religious, to classification as new types of religious experience outside the traditional religious formats, to classifying them as secular or personal religions, to deeming them predominantly secular with religious features (as does Chryssides). Anyone who takes even a perfunctory look at books available online or in any local library will find Landmark and HPM discussed in scholarly NRM literature. Thus, it belongs both on this list and merits mention in the Landmark Worldwide article itself, where the variety of views has been persistently downplayed in favor of Landmark's insistence that it is not a religion. Chryssides actually has good coverage of the variety of views, and is an appropriate citation to support the listing here, rather than a reason to exclude Landmark from this list. A quick look shows a few serious academics who have dealt with est/The Forum/Landmark:

1. the aversion to the "religion" label by Landmark is identified and it is stated that Landmark is a "direct descendant of est with some changes": Elizabeth Puttick "Landmark Forum (est)" in Encyclopedia of New Religions 2004, edited by Christopher Hugh Partridge, pp. 406–407.
2. listed as a "dangerous" cult or NRM by both France and Belgium beginning in 1996: Stuart Wright, 2002. "Public Agency Involvement in Government–Religious Movement Confrontation" in Cults, Religion, and Violence, edited by David G. Bromley, J. Gordon Melton, p. 114.
3. classed as a "client cult": Stephen Sharot, 2011. Comparative Perspectives on Judaisms and Jewish Identities, p. 182.
4. categorized as a "therapy cult": Karl H. Schneider, 1995. "Der Pädagogische Bereich als Operationsfeld für Psychokulte" in 20 Jahre Elterninitiative edited by University of Tubingen, Theologische Abteilung pp. 189-190.
5. classed as a "secular salvation movement": Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, 1992. Despair and Deliverance: Private Salvation in Contemporary Israel, pp. 120-121.
6. deemed not a "cult" though it has "institutionalized a lot of the methods that cults use": Arthur Goldwag, 2009. Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies. pp. 29-30.
7. classified as a "World affirming religious movement": see Roy Wallis' seminal and widely referenced The Elementary Forms of the New Religious Life (1984).
8. listed among "client cults" of a quasi-religious character: George Chryssides, 1999. Exploring New Religions, pp. 229, 687.
9. included as a NRM: John A. Saliba, 2003. Understanding New Religious Movements, p. 88.
10. stated to be a "post-countercultural religious movement: James A. Beckford, 2005. Social Theory and Religion, p. 156.
11. flagged as a "religio-therapy group": Thomas Robbins and Phillip Charles Lucas, 2007. "From 'Cults' to New Religious Movements: Coherence, Definition and Conceptual Framing in the Study of New Religous Movements" in The SAGE Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, edited by James A. Beckford, Jay Demerath, p. 229.

...and the list could go on and on. What will be clear from even a cursory, NPoV look at sources is that Landmark and HPM are considered by a significant segment of NRM scholarship as new religious movements. • Astynax ^talk 21:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Rfc regarding Landmark Worldwide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is Landmark Worldwide (previously known as, Landmark Education, The Forum, est, etc.), which is discussed in the scholarship on new religous movements, eligible for inclusion in the List of New Religious Movements? • Astynax ^talk 08:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. It neither serves the reputation of Wikipedia nor the inerests of readers who turn to it as an authoratitive source to publish misleading information. The sources cited refer to Landmark (and est) tangentially or with strong and clear reservations, as well they might. It is a personal development training company whose customers come from all backgrounds including Christians, Buddhists, Moslems, Jews, Humanists and Atheists. Many of these have publicly endorsed the training programs, which is hardly likely if it were in any normal meaning of the word, a religious phenomenon. Futhermore there is no congregation, community or other fellowship that is impled by the word 'movement'; customers are only connected with the company for the duration of whatever courses they are taking at the time. The other entries in the list are clearly religious in character. DaveApter (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. As stated above, our definition of Human Potential Movement (which is how this entry was listed) is clear that HPMs are not religious, the sources provided do not support calling Landmark a religious movement, and any sources that do exist only refer to est - which is not Landmark. I acknowledge that some sources draw a link between est and Landmark, but they are not the same entity at all. Additionally, User:John Carter has assembled a marvelous resource of reference materials and the articles they relate to as well. Although I know that reference is by no means complete, it does capture several significant works - and Landmark is not among the referred entities. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - based on the fact that, as the article Landmark Education itself says, "The company started with the purchase of intellectual property rights developed by Werner Erhard, founder of est." Also, I would note that the article list specifically includes, in the major articles section of Lewis' encyclopedia, "The Forum" which is apparently the same entity. We allow for the inclusion of Aleph (religion), based on the fact that group is a continuation of Aum Shinrikyo, even though Aleph is not itself (I think) listed in any of the reference works given their age, and I can see no reason for the same basic principle not to be applied here. Also, as others have indicated, the list I compiled is far from complete, and at least one other source not included there, John A. Saliba, 2003. Understanding New Religious Movements, p. 88, mentioned by Astynax in the above section, has apparently identified Landmark as an NRM, and if it has that would be sufficient for our purposes here.John Carter (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph from Saliba (chapter 3, "The New Religious Movements in Psychological Perspective", page 88): "Many of the new religions attract individuals by the promise of peace of mind, spiritual well-being, gratifying experiences, and material success. In so doing they stress their concern for the individual and highlight one's personal worth and self-development. This is especially so in human growth movements such as Scientology, The Forum (previously known as Erhard Seminar Training [EST]), and qualsi-religious encounter groups. Here the focus is on the individual's need to enhance one's own sens of identity, independence, spirituality, and personal talents. Some new religions seem to provide some relief for those who are plagued by an identity crisis." • Astynax ^talk 22:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that for a system of belief to be called religion or new religious movement, they should have some expressed approach to the concept of "God" or at least some metaphysical credo. Hoverfish Talk 19:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

And some scholars would likely go along with your opinion on that, as there are various deliminations between scholars regarding what constitutes religion. However, many others see "self religion" (spirituality that focuses on the self) as a new religious form and/or focus. As I said, there are a variety of takes in the NRM scholarly lit on est/Landmark/Forum, but it is certainly addressed there. As policy enjoins against applying our opinions or original research, we simply summarize what reliable sources say, and in this case, there are a wealth of scholarly sources that identify est, Landmark, et. al. as religious, and in particular as a subject taken up by NRM scholars. • Astynax ^talk 19:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support, the article has a "Disputed religious character" section with backing sources. I think not including it boarders on WP:OR, and picking a side. Inclusion allows the reader to decide because the debate is covered in the article. Omission makes the decision for the reader. I think you would be hard pressed to find a source that claims self identifying as a religion is a requirement for being labeled a religion. There are several better known religions that refuse to self label as a religion. I even know some evangelical churches that are now refusing to use that word. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• That is not actually independent support for the proposal - the section only appeared in the Landmark article in the last few days (by • Astynax, the proposer of this RfC), and its justification is hotly disputed on the talk page; it has already been remove once an immediately re-inserted. And the fact that it is entitled Disputed religious character further indicates the weakness of this line of argument; surely a list whith this title should only contain entries which are undisputedly NRMs, or at least which there is an overwhelming consensus to be such. DaveApter (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Then "only includes undisputed NRM" should be in the descriptor of this list. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, no, it's not a religious movement, and the case for inclusion is weak. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutral (out of doubt about what exactly the stated sources say) Hoewever: The word "Self" can indeed be meant as "God", but not all uses of the word "self" carry spiritual/religious content. I see the same logical flaw in the use of the Saliba quote above: "Many NR attract individuals by promising A or B", but this doesn't make all instances A or B a proof that we are dealing with a NR. Also, since scholars offer both views, the argument of omission being OR or making the decision for the reader is no more valid than inclusion being OR and making the decision for the reader. The reason I oppose is that if we follow this logic we must include ANY instances of "peace of mind, gratifying experiences, and material success" as indications of religion and that Psychology itself would need to be classified as a religion. Hoverfish Talk 10:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

As an additional note of caution, I would like to say, that by not including a group as a New Religion, we keep a much more neutral position than in including it. This is because Wikipedia can be a very powerful influence in the way people look and classify things. So if in describing an ambivalent contemporary group we classify it as A, then we may influence the way this group is faced by the public. Not classifying as A, i.e. leaving it to the reader to do so, is a more neutral position, IMO.

Hoverfish Talk 13:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hoverfish, by your same reasoning, if we don't include them, aren't we making the inverse affirmative statement that "we do not classify it as A"? Thus influencing "the way this group is faced by the public". How exactly are we "leaving it to the reader" if we present them with nothing? Inclusion, with added explanation of the controversy is more accurately "leaving it to the reader" than omission. The controversy exists in the source materiel, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. IMO, exclusion is the only choice the makes the decision for the reader. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Dkriegls, this is logical fallacy, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. i.e. just because something isn't said by Wikipedia to be X does not mean it is not X. Exhaustive listing of everything something is and is not, is not only way beyond the scope of wikipedia it is an impossible task Jasonfward (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Take care when accusing a Philosopher's son of a logical fallacy, they tend to use logic equations in defense ;) The set theory logic equation goes like this: Set A = All New Religious Movements (NRM); Set B = All Notable groups on Wikipedia; This page is the Union of Intersection of A and B (expressed A ∪ B A ∩ B). There is no need for us to claim this is an exhaustive list of NRM for the reader to easily conclude that if a group is a member of B and not a member of A ∪ B A ∩ B, then it is not a member of A. You are right that this list is never likely to be an exhaustive list of NRM, but it is downright defeatist to claim that this list can't be an exhaustive list of all NRM with Wikipedia pages (i.e., A ∪ B A ∩ B).

A Venn diagram illustrating the intersection of two sets.

So if the evidence/citations are inconclusive as to whether Group X belongs to A ∪ B A ∩ B then not presenting Group X on this list may result in the reader making a type II error (i.e., falsely assuming Group X is not a member of A ∪ B A ∩ B when it actually is). Whereas, presenting Group X on this list may result in the reader making a type I error (i.e., falsely assuming Group X is a member of A ∪ B A ∩ B when it actually is not). However, only with inclusion on the list can we the Wikipedia editors present text to the reader that explains the limited evidence and decrease their probability of making a Type I or Type II error. We cannot reduce this probability if we exclude it from this list. You claim that this dilemma is the logical fallacy "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", better known as an Argument from ignorance. It is not. An argument from ignorance relies on a false dichotomy. This is a true dichotomy in that Landmark is either a member of A ∪ B A ∩ B or it is not; simply because this page should be an exhaustive list of A ∪ B A ∩ B. Thank you for challenging me to review my logic, always enjoyable! Dkriegls (talk to me!) 02:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Dkriegls, forgive me, my understanding of logic and set theory only goes as far as it was needed for a career in programming and several years writing Transact-SQL (a language for querying databases based on set theory), so a comprehensive working knowledge, nothing else. Also I find many of things that more expereinced Wikipedia editors know leave me cold, beyond my current understanding, indeed the inaccessibility of how Wikipedia really operates and all its many layers of rules interact one of my major bugbears with the project despite my otherwise great love/respect of wikipedia. (I'm saying all the above genuinely, no disparagement of anyone intended.)

So firstly, I do not know what NRM means, which is one of the reasons I have not more fully involved myself in this and other debates, and of course that means some of what you say makes no sense to me.

Secondly, my understand of a UNION, and it is certainly true of UNIONS in T-SQL, that everything that is part of any part of the UNION is also part of the UNION (written in T-SQL as "SELECT * FROM A UNION B"). So on that understanding a UNION of A and B contains all that A contains and all that B contains, which in turn means (based on my understanding) that "if a group is a member of B and not a member of A ∪ B" is impossible.

I suspect, but and far from sure, that our differing backgrounds of knowledge have led us to two different (yet valid within our respective fields) understandings of what a UNION is, but I have talked to mathematicians about set theory in the past and unless I was wildly misunderstanding what they were saying, I believe what they said reflected my understanding of a UNION and not as you have stated it. Jasonfward (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

First, "NRM" has been used on this talk page as abbreviation for the subject of this article "New Religious Movements". I am not sure if that was your question, or if as I've pointed out elsewhere on this talk page, the very definition of "New Religious Movements" is not clear enough to guide inclusion criterion.

Second, as you have correctly stated, we are using "two different understandings", namely due to the fact that I was using the wrong term. Never due logic after a late night out with the wife. Instead of Union, I meant the Intersection of A and B (expressed A ∩ B not A ∪ B). I imagine these two clarifications might help with interpreting my ramblings from last night. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The supposed sourcing for this claim is both weak and deceptive. The sources, led by Heelas, are mostly making the claim that human potential movements are new religious movements. This view is a minority position, in contradiction of much of the scholarship as well as Wikipedia's own article on the human potential movement. This is literally the only entity that currently appears on Wikipedia's list of new religious movements and its list of human potential movements. Furthermore, almost of the sources are the briefest of mentions as opposed to any in-depth scholarship. The one or two that actually discuss the topic, such as Chryssides, make it quite clear that Landmark isn't really a religion per se, and that it simply makes for interesting study. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

To Adjwilley and Hoverfish: FWIW, regarding the term new religious movement, as per the first paragraph of the article, "Scholars studying the sociology of religion have almost unanimously adopted this term as a neutral alternative to the word cult, which is often considered derogatory". So, in all honesty, while I understand the reservations about whether NRMs must have an overtly religious character, I do not actually see that conclusion necessarily supported by the sources, unless we use the word "religion" as a kind of synonym for Weltanschaung or something similar, and the term is at least sometimes used in that way. And, yes, I think I have seen Landmark referred to as a Cult, like at Governmental lists of cults and sects#French parliamentary commission report (1995). As we don't have a completely separate distinct list for "List of groups referred to as cults" outside the government, or anything similar, it would make sense that it be included in this list, which seems to be the closest approximation of a list of groups perjoratively referred to as "cults". So far as I can tell, honestly, the terms for inclusion would reasonably be whether this group has been referred to in reasonably significant reliable sources as such, and, as indicated by me above, the Lewis encyclopedia includes a major article on "Est and The Forum." The fact that the name is included in the title of that article is to my eyes reasonable cause to believe that it is considered by at least that source (which has been counted as at least one of the better sources on this topic, as an NRM, and that would presumably be sufficient grounds for us to include it as well. Also, honestly, at this point, as per the beginning of the article, there is no clearly decided upon definition of the term NRM, so, honestly, about the only way to more or less objectively decide criteria for inclusion would be on whether the leading independent reliable sources, of which Chryssides is one, describe it as such, and as Astynax indicated, he is not the only one to count this as an NRM. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I see this as coming down to an issue of what do we consider the inclusion criterion for this article. The lead says that NRM include "communitarian enterprises that demand a considerable amount of group conformity and a social identity that separates their adherents from mainstream society. Use of the term NRM is not universally accepted among the groups to which it is applied". This is sourced and allows room for groups like Landmark Worldwide. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 17:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, where does the LW article say that they demand group conformity or a social identity that separates their adherents from mainstream society? Hoverfish Talk 17:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the article itself says that, but I do know that what might be called the real "fans" of Landmark have been reported in sources as being very very committed to it, and just about any group activity which causes a person to spend a lot of time, to the point that some might consider it disproportionate, could be said to be one that "separates their adherents from mainstream society". Please don't ask me what that might imply about being a volunteer for the WMF, though, because the same thing could probably be said about people who spend a lot of time here. I don't know if anyone asked Jimbo whether he considers this a "cult of information" or anything similar, or whether he's ever been called a "cult leader," but maybe we should be a little wary if he starts encouraging editors to drink the Kool-Aid. ;) John Carter (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's in beta so far, but about the issue at hand, we should state this, about some kind of typical group behavior, in the article if it can be sourced. Because if we don't, then we are eroding the borders between NRM and anything related to existentialism, gestalt therapy, logotherapy, wellness (alternative medicine) and so on. Hoverfish Talk 19:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a lot of people are probably going to hate me for saying this, but I remember the New Age itself was counted in at least one reference source on NRMs as being an NRM, and it might make some sense, maybe, to say that those entities within the broad New Age field would qualify for inclusion as being subsets of the broader New Age. That isn't an idea I myself necessarily like, but I guess it could be argued. Developing spinout lists of relevant sub-articles of this page does itself strike me as a good idea, with potentially see also links here, but, until that's done, I guess I would say that if any reference books on NRMs specifically discuss those topics as well, they could possibly be included just like prosperity theology has been included in some reference works. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ya, I think the fact that this debate is even happening suggests the inclusion criterion need clarification. And as John Carter suggests...lets go back to the sources. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, but To put it very briefly, not everything religiously related is a religion or a religious movement. A network of schools teaching according to a particular philosophic or religious doctrine is a network of schools, not a religious movement. The relationship has to be discussed in text, with a full explanation--there is no way of summarizing it one way or another as an entry in a list. Lists are handy, but they contain no opportunity for nuances pr clarification of meaning. As this is, imo , related to EST, perhaps the relationship can be shown in some manner as a footnote. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC) .

@DGG: Good points, actually, and at least the two most obvious (to me anyway) examples, the Waldorf education and Crossroads schools, aren't included in the list, at least as it now stands. Some of the other entities which describe themselves as "schools" or "foundations" or "associations", though, like maybe the Association for Research and Enlightenment, probably fairly clearly qualify as broadly "religious" in some sense, particularly if we include occultism in that broad definition. Cayce did, AFAIR, refer to God's great book in the sky concept in some way, which is fairly clearly at least to a degree religious by modern standards. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It is illogical to include a for profit corporation on this list. This would be an exceptional claim and require exceptionally clear evidence. I have read several first hand news accounts that explicitly state Landmark is not a religion. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Scientology is a for-profit corporation. Are you suggesting we take it off this list? In fact, most major world religions have large for-profit corporations nestled into their hierarchy somewhere. There is nothing illogical about it. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dkriegls, I am not suggesting taking Scientology off the list. They call themselves a religion. There is no question about that. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so not calling yourself a religion. The Self-Realization Fellowship on this list doesn't self identify as a religion. They use the term spiritual organization and expressly avoid calling themselves a region. They use yoga and "scientific principles" to show that "these principles of truth are the common scientific foundation of all true religions". You can be a Christian or a Hindu who practices the principles and they do not claim to be a religion you convert to but are just teaching you how to be better at the religion you already have to get closer to god (interestingly some Scientologists make the same claim). So here we are, "for-profit" "calling your self a religion", what are the inclusion criterion for this list? It's not as logical as your above comment suggests. (and If you were thinking use of the word "God" by the Self-Realization Fellowship is the key, I refer you back to Scientology). Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support inclusion: As other, heavily involved editors have opted to vote here, I will follow their lead. I rest my vote on 1) the group is well-attested as a NRM of one sort or another in the NRM literature; 2) it is one thing to note that there is a diversity of parameters used in NRM scholarship to denote what is included as a "religion" or NRM, and quite another thing entirely for editors here to impose their own views over those of reliable and published academic sources; 3) most NRMs differ substantially from more traditional religions in their view of what constitutes a deity (if any), in lack of formal ritual, explicit doctrine and practice—many specifically disclaim being a religion, membership and other aspects of traditional religious practice and instead focus on spirituality, experience and/or enlightenment, and likely half of the NRMs on this list would dispute their inclusion here on one or another criterion; 4) that a group appears and is discussed as a NRM in the NRM scholarship should be more than enough reason for it to be included here. Policy does not allow editor synthesis (or PoV) to be used to determine what may be included in articles and lists, but it does, rather, demand that all significant points of view in reliable sources be represented and summarized. There is quite a body of NRM scholarship that does discuss Landmark (both as an NRM or cult and as a largely secular group with religious or spiritual characteristics) just as there are varieties of academic views on other groups that are dealt with in the NRM literature. Landmark belongs on the list. • Astynax ^talk 10:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel far from qualified in all honesty to even understand half this conversation let alone be the judge of ... well, actually, I'm not even sure what I'm being asked to judge here. I grasp the debate is about whether Landmark is a religious in nature organisation or not (if thats not what this is about, then what is it about?) and all I can offer is my own thoughts and insights. Firstly I took part in Landmark courses quite extensively some years ago, I estimate I last had any connection with them around 5 years ago, whilst I was participating I met many people of different faiths and many people like myself who are affirmed atheists, indeed I'm personally anti-religion of all types and all forms. Of the people I met none expressed a conflict between Landmark and their religious (or none religious) beliefs.

However others in this discussion have expressed the idea that whether an organisation makes a claim to be religious or not is not a valid test, what is apparently valid is whether the practices of that organisation help people with their faith in some way. So if Landmark through its courses helps people come closer to their faith/god/spaghetti then it is valid to call it a religious organisation. (I hope I have understood what people said, please correct me if I have not). But this surely cannot be. Landmark teach ways of thinking and acting that get the results in life you want and are willing to put your time and effort into. Sure if I want to enhance my relationship with my faith/god/spaghetti and I'm willing to put time and effort into it then Landmark courses will assist me in that. But should I want (and be willing to invest time and effort) into undermining other peoples faith/god/spaghetti Landmarks courses will help me with that too.

So, how is this any different to a car? pen? computer? chair? i.e. I could (but not necessarily) use each of those tools in various ways to either enhance or undermine mine or others relationship with faith/god/spaghetti.

So (finally), in the absence of listing cars, pens, computers, chairs etc as religious in nature why would you want to list Landmark as religious in nature? Jasonfward (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

While personal experience isn't a valid argument for what's appropriate for an article, this comment does point to an argument that is valid: the claim that Landmark is an NRM is an extraordinary one. All the sources that give direct accounts of The Landmark Forum describe it as nonreligious, say it is compatible with other religions or, most commonly, don't mention religion in relation to it all. Given that it's basically a seminar program and that these eyewitness accounts give little or no credence to it being religious or spiritual in nature, then academic sources would have to be overwhelming and crystal clear to make it appropriate to be on a list of religious movements. Instead we have sources that are old, scattered, and equivocal. Given this, and given that those very few who do seem to call Landmark an NRM (Heelas) are basically making the argument that all human potential movements are NRM's, the extraordinary evidence required for an extraordinary claim doesn't seem to be there. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I do wish to congratulate Jasonfward for indicating his own personal history regarding the subject, and believe it would be entirely appropriate if any other individuals who take part in such discussions were to do so as well. Personally, I know only what I've read in some articles, and have never taken part in any of there meetings. I do however believe that it would be perhaps quite reasonable to perhaps, as I indicated below, change the title of the article to List of cults, sects, and new religious movements or something similar. Unfortunately, that discussion would probably best take place after this one, given the amount of time that has already elapsed. My thinking is as follows. Although it isn't necessarily stated as directly as some would like in a lot of sources, the term NRM was pretty much coined as a "politically correct", non-perjorative term to function as a descriptor for the groups targeted by the then already up-and-running Anticult movement. In the beginning of the history of the term, it seems to have been, basically just a synonym of "cult" as used relating to that movement and those groups it opposed. All those groups seem to have been, basically, on that basis, "grandfathered" into the topic of NRMs. The fact that the anticult movement was itself rather less than focused in some regards and included some groups which didn't really comfortably fit into the "religious" terminology did not then seemingly keep them from being examined by those involved in the subject of the anticult movement and the groups it criticized, and considering the study of NRMs as such seems to have, in a sense, begun or become more common contemporaneous with or slightly after the anticult movement, broadly defined, they seem to have been included in the field since its beginning as the study of NRMs as such. So, for the purposes of making the encyclopedia useful to those who use it, it seems to me that those groups called cults who were among the first groups studied in the broad field of NRM studies should reasonably be included, whether they themselves describe themselves as "religious" or not. If that means expanding the stated scope of the list to make it more useful on that basis, well, we can follow the lead of Lewis in that regard, who included all three terms cult, sect, and new religions/new religious movements in the title of his fairly highly regarded reference book on the topic. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of sources

There are a number of calls throughout this RFC to get back to the sources. Having now read far more than I ever intended about the subject, I have attempted to review each of the sources currently listed in the entry for Landmark. I have numbered them for convenience of response, and these numbers do not correspond to anything other than the order in which I listed them.

1. Psychiatry and Religion: Context, Consensus and Controversies (edited by Dinesh Bhugra) is a compilation and it appears that the reference to Landmark was an editorial decision without reference. The chapter in question ("New religions and mental health") draws on the work of Eileen Barker and her articles in the Annual Review of Sociology. All of these articles preceed the existence of Landmark by five or more years, and none of them mention Landmark. The reference to est is in Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 12, 1986 and in context is actually saying that there is a distinction between religious groups (like ISKCON, the Unification Church, the Children of God or Ananda Marga) which are likely to expect total commitment and HPMs (like est, TM, the Emin or Exegesis) which have a clientele seeking enlightenment or self-development. So, in context, this source is specifically saying that HPMs are not religious groups.
2. Social Theory and Religion (James A. Beckford) - a search of the google books edition (the same ISBN cited) does not include Landmark or est at all, so I don't understand the relevance of this source.
3. Encyclopedia of American religions (2003 edition, J. Gordon Melton) - a search of the google books edition (same ISBN) does not include "Erhard" at all, but we are showing it as a source for "Werner Erhard" as founder. Again, I don't understand the citation.
4. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions (Nichols) - is published by the niche Christian Press Zondervan, has questionable editorial oversight or peer review, and (to paraphrase the introduction to the book) the authors are committed to the belief that there is one objective truth (the Bible) and it is their task to challenge false refutations of that truth. This is not a valid source for who the founder of Landmark is or when it was founded, and is unlikely to be seen as a reliable source for anything else either.
5. New religions: a guide : new religious movements, sects and alternative spiritualities (Partridge) - I was unable to locate a searchable or online source for this, so I don't know what specifically it says on the topic. I do know that the publisher's description says that the book includes discussion of religious offspring including the worship of celebrities like Elvis and Princess Diana, but that doesn't preclude it as a source. If anyone can quote in context from this work, that would be appreciated.
6. The A to Z of New Religious Movements (Chryssides 2006) - The entry on Landmark Education Corporation specifically says "Forum seminars are not regarded as religious, although some participants regard their experiences as spiritual". Although there is some conflation of the two entities, Chryssides also has separate entries for est and Landmark, which again supports that they are separate and we should carefully consider confusing the two.
7. Handbook of New Age (edited by Kemp & Lewis) - The references to Landmark in this are of two varieties. The first is in a piece by Chryssides which argues that there are important differences between "New Age", "alternative spirtuality", "New Religious Movements", and "New Social Movements". Chryssides in this work appears to hold Landmark in the "New Age" category, although the only direct substantiation for Landmark's inclusion in this at all is a Brewer quote from 1975 (cited by Heelas in 1996), which clearly predates Landmark's existence by more than 15 years.
8. The Dutch and Their Gods: Secularization and Transformation of Religion in ... (edited by Sengers, quoted by Aupers 2005) classifies est as a New Age movement that is not religious in nature. It also uses the same mistaken 1996 citation by Heelas of a 1975 Brewer quote to say that est operates today as Landmark, which appears to be inaccurate.

In the interests of forwarding this discussion, please use the numbering above and discuss the sources below as needed. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the intent behind your review here, as the relevance seems tenuous. Nevertheless, since you are casting aspersions that are ill-founded, I'll rise to sniff at the bait:

1. I cannot credit your peculiar version of how the referenced work was written, on what bases its statements were constructed, the editorial process that was used, etc. You have somehow missed that academic authors frequently cite portions of the works of other scholars without necessarily agreeing with or endorsing everything in the cited work. A Wiki citation reference points to what the cited work says and those statements stand alone. We don't go back, ripping through several layers of citations of citations to find something to cast doubt upon the reference's statements, etc., which is blatant WP:OR rather than reporting what sources say.
2. The page number was given (156), so I don't know how you could have missed the reference. For your benefit, est/Landmark is discussed along with others labeled "New Religious Movements" in a passage regarding how religion has metamorphosed during the 20th century, where he notes that "other commentators such as Tipton and Foss and Larkin detected a tendency for post-countercultural religious movements such as Erhard Seminars Training (now the Landmark Forum) to re-combine instrumentalism and expressivism in ways that could help their participants to fit into the routines of mainstream social life.
3. I'm unsure why you even included this in your disputations. As you noted, Melton was only used to reference Erhard as the founder (again, the page number is sitting right there in the citation). Are you actually disputing this or is this just another red herring?
4. Yes, the publisher of this encyclopedia does have a religious PoV. That doesn't automatically exclude it, or similar sources, from being deemed reliable (indeed, Wikipedia accepts as reliable sources works from many scholars who work with institutions with a pronounced religious outlook). As a matter of policy, neither publishers or authors are required to be neutral to be deemed reliable, it is only our reporting as editors that is to be free of personal PoV. For an organization that contends that it embraces all religious outlooks, it seems rather odd that many look at it with reservations. Regardless, it is just one of 4 cites for Landmark's HPM categorization.
5. Again, this reference lists (several times) Landmark as an example of a HPM. The article on Landmark begins: "The Landmark Forum is a direct descendant, with substantial changes, of est (Erhard Seminar Training). est was one of the most successful manifestations of the human potential movement (HPM)."
6. Again, this particular work by Chryssides was not cited merely to give his personal conclusion (i.e., that according to his criterion, Landmark has religious features, but does not meet his own tests for a full-fledged religion), but because he gives an overview of other scholars, of whom many do indeed regard it as a new religious movement. There is a range of opinions on the classification, and this is merely a good reference for the variety (including other classifications that we do not list in the "Type" column). Chryssides himself may not regard Landmark as a religion, but he does establish that it is regarded as a NRM of one type or another by other respected scholars.
7. So, you at least see Chryssides including Landmark in "New Age" movements (which is what is being cited), but you somehow need to make out that his conclusion in 2007 is invalid because you have somehow divined that it rests soley upon a source predating the changeover from est to Landmark and that he is insufficiently aware of developments in the intervening decades. Regardless of your misplaced challenge, however, Chryssides in this work is cited for Landmark's categorization by some as "New Age" and Ramstedt is cited to show that it is also categorized as part of the "Human Potential Movement".
8. See #1 above. You don't get to second-guess a scholar's statements by presuming to dispute their positions and going on to use their respected sources (including Heelas who puts est/Landmark squarely in his "world-affirming religions" typology, and has maintained it) as strawmen.

Talk pages aren't intended to be blogs, so this kind of "review" is (or should be) irrelevant here. • Astynax ^talk 10:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I should have been more specific in my use of the word "review". My intention was to evaluate the sources, with an eye on User:WhatamIdoing's essay on identifying sources, as well as our policies regarding types of sources. I attempted to describe the references in the context of the works cited.

One result of that attempt was my observation that nearly all of the sources refer to est, and not to Landmark (except possibly in passing, while continuing to discuss est). As we can see at the Landmark Worldwide article, there are a number of modern, mainstream, reliable sources that clearly state that Landmark is not est and that it is not a religion. My point in addressing the lineage of Brewer's 1975 quote in Psychology Today, which was then quoted by Heelas in 1996, which was then re-quoted by others, is that we have a personal observation from 38 years ago being used as a direct citation about an organization (Landmark) that did not even exist until at least 15 years after the observation was made.

Lastly, it is difficult for me to follow the argument that Chryssides is a source for categorizing Landmark (or even est) as a NRM. To quote Chryssides (who quotes Heelas):

The New Age is certainly not a religion. Paul Heelas writes: "Some see the New Age Movement as a New Religious Movement (NRM). It is not. Neither is it a collection of NRMs" (Heelas, 1996:9).

— Chryssides, George D., "Defining the New Age." Handbook of New Age 1 (2007): 5.

Thank you for continuing to discover this with me. I respect your obvious knowledge of the subject and your engagement in the discussion. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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)

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)