Talk:Néo-Phare

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TheNuggeteer talk 23:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that there was a doomsday cult named after Neo from The Matrix?

• Source: https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/2002/09/04/dans-un-pavillon-nantais-six-membres-de-la-secte-neo-phare-attendent-l-apocalypse-pour-le-24-octobre_4254378_1819218.html

• Reviewed:

Created by PARAKANYAA (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC).

• A new, well-written article, both informative and horrifying. It is long enough, sourced, neutral, no copyvio. The hook is both interesting and sourced in the text; the source is paywalled, so I accept it in good faith. No QPQ neccessary. Only issue is the linked "Neo (The Matrix)" article, as it has multiple issues; thus I have removed the link from the hook. Otherwise, passed. Good work! Applodion (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Néo-Phare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 17:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 00:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment just a warning I am having a very bad time in my real life right now so my responses to address issues in this article maybe be slower than typical for me. Will still attempt to address in a timely manner. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional note: Someone added an authorlink to Loren Coleman: we do not have an article on the author Loren Coleman, and it is not the cryptozoologist. Loren Coleman as cited in this article is, iirc, a researcher into suicide. I have removed this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Was apparently the same guy! Cryptozoologist and suicide researcher. Well that is unique. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Take as much time as you need. Life comes first. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: I'm going on vacation tomorrow, and on top of that, I'm sick, so I'm trying to sleep whatever this is off tonight before I leave. I would like to continue the review, but it will be slow going and there might be some delay. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts I don't mind! No rush. I have been slow in responding myself, apologies for that. I will attempt to address your remaining issues. PARAKANYAA(talk) 22:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I am free now, so I will begin work addressing your concerns again. Apologies for the wait. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I am still on vacation and won't really be able to fully dedicate attention to this until Friday. While you're working on addressing comments, a lot of my copy edits have been around sentence structure/concision, so it would be helfpul if you go throught it again with that in mind. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I addressed or attempted to address the points you brought up and will probably do another read through for sentence structure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I will be leaving comments and making copy edits as I review the article. If you disagree with any of the copy edits, please feel free to leave a note below and we can discuss them. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Look's okay per Earwig. Will also look into sources during the spot check.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• In the history and beliefs section, provide dates if you can. When did he work for France-Telecom, get his degree, and become a hitchhiker?
  • No source says when. Some sources specify he used to be a salesman for France-Telecom, but none mention when/where he got his degree. For context this is more or less every single source that has been written on the topic (except one website mentions something may have been written about it in the Fortean Times which alas, I could not find). The only date mentioned in the sources are when he was born, when he moved to Argentina, and when he joined Ouest-Phare.
• Another source described him as a "former hitchhiker". – Specify who this other source is.
  • did
• He was an obscure writer. – This needs more context. It seems kind of thrown into the middle of the paragraph there.
  • i moved this around into a different sentence where it fits better
• After Bougenec's death, Mussy formed a schismatic group, on the grounds that he considered the members of Phare-Ouest to be too religiously rigid "like the Pharisees"; though another source attributes this to both internal conflicts and his ambition. – Both of these claims need attribution.
  • did
• Two members of this group, a couple, had both been members of Phare-Ouest for seven years before Mussy joined, and went with him in the schism. – Why is this important (cf. WP:DUE)?
  • This is important because it's the same couple as later who allegedly attempted suicide: early on in my writing of the article I did not have their names censored so this was clearer. Their names are freely available in many of the sources, but Palmer 2011 decided to give them fake names (though she didn't in her 2008 work on the same topic), so this sentence now makes less sense. I'm unsure what I should do here; I feel it's relevant when they joined. But unlike Trossais they are still alive, so...
    • I think the issue is that you have a combined "History and beliefs" section. These sections should be separate. Additionally, the information about the couple and Trossais should be in the "Suicide and alleged attempts" section. That would make for a more coherent chronological narrative and allow the history section to focus on a broader view of the group's history.
      • I think that's a fair point, but I'm not sure if there's enough information on their beliefs to maintain its own section, given their brief existence and how their beliefs evolved over time, I'm not sure if they're necessarily easy to extract from each other. Originally the section was simply named "history" but I covered the evolution of their beliefs enough that I felt it was warranted, though I suppose it could be changed back. Additionally, given their legacy from Bougenec, the belief systems of that group somewhat naturally flow into the history. You have a point with the information on the couple and Trossais belonging in the other section so I will think on how to handle that (probably will move it down).
      • I moved the content about the couple down, where it now makes sense in context. I am undecided on the location of the information about Trossais because I feel it makes slightly more sense to establish this before.
        • It still feels out of place, and the end of the paragraph before it flows nicely into the next section. I think it should also be in the suicide section so that editors trying to read about Trossais can see his entire story in one section.
          • moved down, had to shuffle some things around
• They attempted to rebuild a life after an apocalypse that would be in line with the group's beliefs. – I'm not sure what this means.
  • I tried to rephrase it. Basically, the world will end and the group's mission was to rebuild the world after that according to their view
• The group lived cooperatively but not communally. – What's the distinction between the two?
  • hard to explain here given the sourcing, but i added a bit to make it clearer. a cooperative is different from a commune/Intentional community, for example
    • Does the sourcing say what kind of cooperative acts they engaged in? If so, specify those acts instead of using labels and attempting to draw a distinction based on the sources.
      • it says they lived together but kept working jobs (implied to be outside the group) and kept separate bank accounts.
• a 29-year-old gym instructor – When is this? 2001 when the group was formed? Please clarify.
  • Hm, it's when he died. I agree that his age might be different then, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Should I remove his age entirely?
    • Yes.
      • did that
• One commentator claimed this led to his abuse within the movement; however, Judas was actually viewed positively within their theology, as the "closest, most-beloved disciple" of Jesus, so this may not have been inherently stigmatizing. – The "commentator" and the portion after the semicolon both need attribution and should not be in wikivoice.
  • did
• classed as a doomsday cult – attribute
  • did
• Who claimed that Bougenec foresaw 9/11? Mussy? Another group member?
  • the source does not specify this, but implies the group as a whole thought it, so I can't do much here. the wording used here is "A. Bouguenec avait soit disant prévu dans ses écrits la destruction des tours de New York ! Le 11 septembre 2001 a donc été vécu comme la première étape vers l’apocalypse. Arnaud Mussy, fort des messages reçus par chanelling, surenchérit en décrétant que l’inverse du 11.09 est le 11.06 (en retournant le chiffre 9)." [A. Bouguenec had supposedly predicted in his writings the destruction of the New York towers! 11 September 2001 was therefore experienced as the first step towards the apocalypse. Arnaud Mussy, on the strength of the messages received by channeling, went one better by decreeing that the opposite of 11.09 is 11.06 (by turning the number 9 around).] edit: actually i am blind palmer says it was mussy, fixed
• Why is there a 0 in "11/06" but not in "11/9"?
  • fixed
• Mussy said that the attacks were a message from God to prepare for the end; he announced that the end of the world would occur on 29 December 2001. – I presume this prediction came after the 11/6 date came and went, but that's not clear in the text.
  • hm, the sources disagree. jougla 2003 says that he declared that the apocalypse would be 11/6/2002, but palmer says that: "He claimed that Bougenec had predicted the destruction of the Twin Towers, but had encrypted the date as “11/06.” Inverted, this became “9/11." palmer gives a more thorough rundown of events and doesn't mention mussy predicting an apocalypse that date, nor does any other source, and several sources explicitly identify the december date as the first, so i think this may be a minor mistake on jougla's part. i'll just change it to what palmer says
• That month – December?
  • clarified
• another member shouted out – What did they shout out?
  • she repeatedly said "beaucoup" which i don't think is a pertinent detail and i feel doesn't make a lot of sense in english (or at all) so it may actively detract from understanding
• When the apocalypse date arrived, nothing happened. Is this referring to September or December or another month?
  • clarified
• There were a few couple changes like this, though not all group members were affected. The preceding sentences make it seem like he made a lot of changes to couples, but then this sentence makes it seem like this was actually rare. Which was it?
  • all the source says is "There were changes 3 or 4 times. Not every couple changed." i don't think this is in contradiction to the previous sentence, because while the couples in the group were supposed to represent ideal couples i think that some of them were already in "ideal" pairings. or something like that. but i added the number
• In the last paragraph of the Apocalypse predictions section, the chronology is unclear. It jumps from the end of 2002 back to March.
  • i don't think so - the previous paragraph is about february 2002, and the next one has stuff about march. it says that mussy said the apocalypse would be in late 2002, but he said it in that period (february-march 2002), so i don't think that's an issue

Source review and spot checks

• To come.

Copy edits

• Discuss here.

Loren Coleman

Hello PARAKANYAA, firstly thanks for this article.

I noticed you reverted the author-link I added to Loren Coleman with the edit summary "not the same Loren Coleman". Before adding that link I did due research to confirm they were the same person and I remain convinced it is indeed the same, ie the "cryptozoologist".

The author-link I added was for the Sources book: Coleman, Loren L. (2004) The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow's Headlines, specifically the chapter "Cultic Copycats", published by Simon & Schuster in 2004, ISBN 978-1-4165-0554-9.

On the Loren Coleman article I linked, there is mention of the book he authored, in the section The Copycat Effect, and in the Bibliography "The Copycat Effect (New York: Paraview Pocket-Simon & Schuster, 2004, ISBN 0-7434-8223-9)". See current ref 21 in that article: "Coleman, Loren (2004). The copycat effect : how the media and popular culture trigger the mayhem in tomorrow's headlines (1st ed.). New York: Paraview Pocket Books. ISBN 0-7434-8223-9"

My search for, and comparison of, the 2 ISBNs showed that:

• ISBN 0-7434-8223-9 was published by Gallery Books which is an imprint of Simon & Schuster. It is the paperback version.

• The ISBN you used in Néo-Phare, 978-1-4165-0554-9, is the ebook version published by Pocket Books, another Simon & Schuster imprint.

(I am not sure where the middle initial "L." that you use comes from. It does not appear on either of the ISBN search results. We do have an article for a Loren L. Coleman, which is unrelated to this author.)

Anyway, I'll leave it to you. I enjoyed reading the article and look forward to more. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@JennyOz I thought that section was a WP:CHIMERA, but reading the Boston Globe source it is in fact the same person! Sorry for reverting you D: PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Suicide expert and cryptozoologist. Interesting combination. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed! Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

And for future reference, I believe the L. came from the usage of that book as a citation on the doomsday cult page. I have a tendency to copy citations from related pages, and that article always said the book was written by a Loren L. Coleman. Looking at the page history this has been a mistake since that article was created by User:Cirt in 2007. I have now corrected it; I assume they confused the two people, or just wanted to pretend it was the other guy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)