Talk:Massimo Introvigne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Primary self-published source[edit]

In the recently added sentence beginning "At the regional elections of 2010 in his home region of Piedmont [..]" the inline EL given as a cite is, which is registered to Massimo Introvigne. AndroidCat (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Gallagher quote in the lead[edit]

I checked the quote in the lead: American scholar Eugene V. Gallagher describes CESNUR as "a research organization focused on new and minority religions." (Eugene V. Gallagher, "'Cult Wars' in the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries," in Eugene V. Gallagher, ed., Cult Wars in Historical Perspectives: New And Minority Religions, London and New York: Routledge, 2017, 2.) The full quote is "Massimo Introvigne charts the development of the Center for the Study of New Religions (CESNUR) as a research organization focused on new and minority religions." JimRenge (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. The relevant page of the book is readable on Google Books. From context this isn't a quote from Gallagher, it is instead Gallagher explaining how Introvigne himself describes CESNUR. Attributing this to Gallagher is not appropriate in any part of the article, especially not the lead. Pending further discussion, I have removed the line. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Introvigne contributed to the book edited by Gallagher but, as it is clear from the context, the further comments are by Gallagher himself.Aidayoung (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Michael Ashcraft's book[edit]

Obviously Ashcraft's book is a relevant source. It has been reviewed inter alia by Carole Cusack from University of Sydney as "highly recommended to all interested in the history of academic study of religion and in new religions in particular. It is warmly commended as an excellent work." See [1]. Ashcraft is a professor at Truman State University, see [2], and his book is published by Routledge, a specialized publisher. It discusses Introvigne in even more laudatory terms, that I could have included. I limiter myself to quoting a cool assessment. Aidayoung (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This bland, cherry picked filler doesn't improve the article, and only serves to pad-out an already bloated and obviously promotional article. Citing a positive general review of a source demonstrates a very, very poor understanding of Wikipedia and due weight. With all sources, context matters. Do not ignore context. Grayfell (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, context matter. The context is the only academic book on the history of the study of new religious movements, written by a credentialed academic and published by an academic press. In the book, Ashcraft discusses the role of CESNUR and Introvigne in the history of NRM studies and cult controversies. Why Kent and even old articles by newspapers should be RS and Ashcraft dismissed?Aidayoung (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

My patience for these obvious games has warn pretty thin. This is a loaded and misleading argument. Your edit was textbook false balance. You have prioritized a cherry-picked quote from W. Michael Ashcraft and placed that before and in contrast to a different assessment, which you editorialize as "another academic with a more critical approach to cults" referring to Stephen A. Kent. This ham-handed editorializing and puffery is not appropriate. I am not interested in meeting you halfway between good-editing and promotion and PR. The goal is always good editing, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for "laudatory" filler. Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that Aidayoung has been blocked from English Wikipedia for tendentious editing and sock puppetry. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Legal career[edit]

I agree that autobiographical sources are not RS. I quoted an article by La Repubblica and the Web site of the World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations agency, to confirm that Introvigne worked for the law firm Jacobacci e Associati and his education. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Francis Effect[edit]

I mentioned (as shortly as possible) the 2013 research on the Francis effect, as it was mentioned among others by The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The Times of London, and discussed in a book by Andrea Tornielli, the current editorial director of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communication. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The raw quantity of sources is not sufficient, because all sources are judged in context. This is not a directory of every single thing this person has done. A study with a small, opaquely-selected sample size proves nothing and is not significant merely because it exists. Stop attempting to lard the article with promotional tid-bits. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I defer to your opinion as a more experienced editor, although I included the research not merely because it existed but because it was mentioned by a plurality of mainline international media, which obviously regarded it as significant. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

..among the world's leading scholars of new religious movement[edit]

I wonder what it means if some Italian sociologist claims he is "one of the Italian sociologists of religion most well-known abroad, and among the world's leading scholars of new religious movements" ? When claiming international impact international sources would be better. Also the link to Cipriani links to the Italian version although an English version apparently exists as well Richiez (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed the wikilink. It was not clear to me why either of the laudatory but uninformative quotes belonged in the lead. I have moved them further down in the article pending additional discussion. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

“Founded” CESNUR[edit]

The only source offered was a newspaper article. I have left it, as it is otherwise interesting, but it incorrectly reported that Introvigne was “the” founder of CESNUR and that it was founded in Turin, while the two academic sources I added (which pay specific attention to CESNUR) mention it was founded in Foggia by three people, so “co-founder” seems more accurate. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

New Religious Movements[edit]

I tried to put some order in the paragraph, which looked somewhat garbled, without eliminating any of the information and criticism other editors had included, by putting first what Introvigne’s positions are in the cult controversy, followed by criticism. Renard’s quote was incongruously in the text rather than in the references. As per Ortega’s interesting articles, CESNUR is an organization and cannot be an "apologist journal." In fact, Ortega referred to The Journal of CESNUR, which is indeed a Journal, criticizing specifically four articles on Scientology. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The article was already a hot mess. Your efforts strongly appear to be a continuation of the article's previous WP:AUTOBIO problems. If you intend to continue editing this article, you will need to completely realign your style to be more neutral and less obsequiously flattering. The more you edit in this way, the less plausible it is that you do not have a conflict of interest. Grayfell (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I was actually following your suggestion to make the changes by installments and discuss on the talk page. With your permission, I will include again the correction of the date of the French report on cults], which is 1995 rather than 1997, and the fact that Ortega could only have called "an apologist journal" (as it did) The Journal of CESNUR (a journal) rather than CESNUR (an association). Btw, as you certainly realized, some of the stuff you deleted had not been added by me. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

PS Just for my future guidance, can you explain what was inappropriate in the sentence: "Introvigne co-authored with American scholars Dick Anthony, J. Gordon Melton and James T. Richardson books and articles criticizing the theory of brainwashing and the anti-cult movement."? I believed the statement, when referenced as it was, to be merely factual. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)