Talk:New religious movement/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The cult and paste from cult is incorrect

The word NRM is new and existed long before the word cult. Andries 18:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LOL! You mean the "cut and paste"....
But seriously, Andries, I added all that stuff to correct the "deficiency in the article - controversial NRMs are not mentioned". All that remains is to integrate the non-destructive-cult stuff from that big paste. I might not finish it all in one day; I do have a life. --Uncle Ed 19:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Untrue, they were mentioned. Andries 19:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
what you did was a revolution in your edits. I prefer an evolution. Andries 19:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ah, but as a believer in intelligent design, I would quite naturally believe that evolution is impossble (see irreducible complexity ;-) --Uncle Ed 13:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Seriously, though, I believe both (1) that it's useless to make a major change if you and the others oppose it (cuz you'll just revert it, and I'll refuse to fight about it); and (2) that a radical change is needed, because the POV of the anti-cult movement pervades the articles. But I don't have the energy to create a fork; I'd rather you all would bear with me and help me make this change. --Uncle Ed 13:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is the funiest Freudian slip I have seen, Andries,... cult & paste! ROFL!.
How to go about this? An anti-cult POV pervades the article as it stands now, and as such it requires work. Any constructive proposals to do this will be appreciated, but note that status quo is not an acceptable proposition given the poor state of this article. --≈ jossi ≈ 15:34, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, I agree that the current cult article is too close to the POV of the anti-cult movement. Andries 16:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we could go through the article line by line, inserting "anti-cult advocates say..." in front of every POV statement? --Uncle Ed

:) that will not do it, Ed... and you know it... I recommend to clear the decks and start from scratch. --≈ jossi ≈ 21:51, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, but that's a huge writing job. I spent 3 hours just reading the Ontario Consultants website. Then I'm gonna hafta read a lot of Prof. Hadden's material again. And I'll probably need to dig up my copy of that book our church's head lawyer wrote, which is a verrrrry long read. Can't I just say that people can't agree on religion and often go to the extreme of calling other religions fake? :-) --Uncle Ed 00:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That will be simplicity at its best... :) ≈ jossi ≈ 00:33, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

External links


de:Neue Religiöse Bewegung fr:Nouveaux mouvements religieux pl:Nowe ruchy religijne ja:新宗教


Cut and paste from old version of cult which I renamed to destructive cult. --Uncle Ed 18:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And moved some things around... don't kill me but the article looked horrible. I hope I've helped, if not revert the changes please. Trying to be proactive here - not cause trouble. </nowiki> JoeHenzi 09:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. The more the merrier.
And part of the difficulty is terminology. The term "cult" is rather subjective. Sociologists coined the term "new religious movement" (or NRM) to avoid the negative connotations of cult. (Like, if it's a "cult", we already know it's bad, so why study it "objectively"? Are you a cult apologist? Who's side are you on, anyway?)
We also need help on brainwashing, thought reform, mind control; as well as destructive cult, list of purported cults and other related articles. Jump in! --Uncle Ed 16:24, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I will do my best. Maybe the strategy will be to use the existing cult material and try to show how they are the same and/or different. I think this page is not on the side of NPOV because it makes the casual reader seem that every new religious movement is in fact a cult. Not something you want to read when you think you've found something that makes you happy. If you are asking me if I'm a cult apologist, I don't think so. I just think this article is a mess, like I've said it seems that we are trying to tell Krishnas that they are members of a cult (note, I know nothing about Krishnas). Even though I'm opposed to the idea of, membership of and existance of, lets say Scientology, I would never think of trying to put anything but facts in that article - this site is not one which should try to sway one's beliefs. I usually try to stay away from articles which get me worked up because the temptation is there to put in POV work. I hope this helps show my position. BTW; I've already left this message in another persons talk page but let me restate it: I think this could be a good start, we might just need to make this material point out the similarities and difference to cults. Then again, I'm just human. JoeHenzi 01:19, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Using the word cult is part of the problem. Remember that the official definition is "a religion regarded as spurious". (emphasis added for talk page)

It's almost a grammatical error to discuss whether a group is really a cult. What we mean is whether a group is really spurious, i.e., either just pretending to be a religion (while it has some ulterior goal) or professing false doctrines (i.e., heresy).

I think we'd be better off describing what NRMs actually do. Hare Krishna devotees shave their hair off, dab green paste on their foreheads, and wear diapers and dorky orange robes while pursuing a celibate communal lifestyle. They not faking this, and they're never made their leader rich. Are their beliefs really true? (Ah, that's hard to say: are any Hindu beliefs really true?)

A group that commits mass suicide thinking that will get them onto a comet, now that's what I'd call a destructive cult.

Another thing: I think we should move the info about cult checklists to a separate article. They're cluttering up all the cult, destructive cult and NRM articles. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I did it. See cult checklist. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Duplication of text?

I can see the Ed and Andries took upon themselves to make some sense out of the cult, destructive cult, and related articles. Commendable effort!

As this article contains a lot of duplicated text with the cult article, may I suggest to remove all that duplicate material and have a See also link to the cult article instead? --Zappaz 22:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have removed several sections as these were an old version of a much improved text that now appears in the cult article. Zappaz 21:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I agree with your edits and we are now basically back on the version of 10 September. I am not happy with the merry go round editing proces. Andries 22:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Subud

I will add Subud to the "examples of new religious movements" section of the article because Subud is a very good example of a New religious movement. It is a good example because if NRMs in general break the mold about religious or spiritual beliefs, then Subud breaks the mold in a more dramatic way because it is not a belief system per se. There are no specific beliefs required in order to do the Latihan. Because there are no specific beliefs, it follows that, e.g., practicing Muslims and practicing Christians (or anyone practicing any religion--or an open-minded atheist or agnostic) can be in Subud without any conflict of belief. E.g., it is doubtful that a person can be a practicing Christian and a practicing Muslim at the same time because the status of Jesus conflicts in these two religions. But since Subud doesn't address the status of Jesus (or the status of anything) then there is no conflict about practicing Christians and practicing Muslims being in Subud. Aliman 06:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NRM disambig?

There is a very popular rock band in Belarus called NRM - http://nrm.by.com/ - I would like to write an article about it. Can someone explain to me how it can be done and how can I make a disambiguation page? Thanks. --rydel 23:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure. It's easy:

  1. Create an article with the title NRM (band) <--(just click on that link) and write your article on the Belarus band there on that page, and save that page.
  2. Go to NRM <--(just click on that link). That will take you to the "New religious movement" page. At the top of that page, in parentheses and small print, it will say, "(Redirected from NRM)."
  3. Click that "NRM" link in the parentheses at the top of that page, and it will take you back to the NRM redirect page, which currently says only: # REDIRECT [[New religious movement]] .
  4. Edit that redirect page, and delete that redirecting line of text.
  5. Type in your new disambig page, with a listing for and link to [[New religious movement]] , and a listing for and link to [[NRM (band)]] . Be sure to put the tag {{disambig}} at the bottom of that page.
  6. Save that page.
  7. Click on "What links here" on that page, which takes you to a list of pages that link to "NRM". Go to each page on that list (other than a talk page, don't bother with them) that links to "NRM" when it means "new religious movement", and change the link on each of those pages from [[NRM]] to [[New religious movement]] .

There you are. Let me know if you have any problems. --Gary D 19:18, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

hate group debate

Moved the text from Hate group article to here, after a prolonged debate as per its relevace on the context of Hate groups in general, as the text is indeed relevant to this article. --Zappaz 12:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Merge with cult into Cults and new religious movements ?

Shall we merge this article with cult into Cults and new religious movements? Like Ed Poor, I am confused what should go where e.g. I think that some of Zappaz' edits with regards to hate groups should have gone into the cult article. Andries 14:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After what we went through at hate group, just because one single sentence, It gives me a headache to even consider such merge... I will not stop you from trying, though, but please note that the Cult page is now close to 30K, so merging will certainly exceed the alloted 32K. Also note that the Cult article has a very specific header that may limit what can go there. --Zappaz 15:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yow! The NRM article has been relatively stable, while the Cult articles have raged and raged. This would be bringing the POV battle bull into the quiet china shop. I would advise being very certain before deciding on this, and even then moving very slowly into such a volatile merge. --Gary D 21:35, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

All religions begin as 'new religious movements ' all religions begin as 'cults, as a cult is defined as a growing interest that captures some public imagination - this is without bringing in accusations of brainwashing or other controversies. A religion becomes a more established sect if it survives the death or retirement of its founder members by a generation or more. Cultists understandably don't like being called cultists as this kind of dispute shows - and the tendency to immediately put (this means cults) in brackets next to new religious movement in definitions stops NRM's being a convenient replacement phrase. The damage is however done. Most people see New religions as cults. It will now be very difficult, if not impossible for a new religion's leader to avoid beiong accused of leading a cult. The definitions have become inseperable. Though an ex-cultist myself, I have no real problems with the word cult, and 'New' soon becomes meaningless when a cult has been round for decades or more. (User:arthurchappell

Removal of some of material moved here by Zappaz from hate group

I removed some of them because I think they are too detailed for such a broad subject. The AFF accusation can go in the anti-cult movement article. Andries 07:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not a happening thing, Andries. If the text is too detailed for your taste, spawn it to its own separate artice. Deleting good text from an article for such a reason is unacceptable. --Zappaz 03:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You had already done that in hate groups and new religious movements, which will most probably survive vote for deletion. I will remove again. Andries 07:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Besides, the opinion of Elan Vital and its dectractors is the opinion of small minority. Same for the accusation against the AFF. I mean I do not think that a significant part of the CESNUR affiliated agree with it. Barker and Melton even visited an AFF conference in the year 2000. Hence following NPOV guidelines these opinions should not be mentioned. Andries 07:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For everybody's benefit here, Andries deletion has nothing to do with NPOV but actually with his own POV. If anyone has a small minority opinion it is the 20 people in the ex-premie group + Andries, LOL!. Interested in the whole story? Read the talk page of hate group from which the text was moved here by Zappaz. It was moved here for the only reason that it was felt that it did not belong there. But it belongs here! ≈ jossi ≈ 11:23, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
It does not belong here. It goes far too much into detail for such a broad subject and NRMs. I support moving it too a separate article. Andries 17:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz removed the rebuttal by the ex-premies for reasons that I do not udnerstand. Probably he thought it was too detailed but the rebuttal belongs together with the allegation. If this is unacceptable because it is too detailed then the whole paragraph should be removed from this article. Andries 14:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Andries, your strategy will not work. The text will stay as it pertains to "NRM's and their ctitics", a summary and a link to the crticism of PR is all, what is needed. --Zappaz 21:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with the current summary. Andries 23:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I had to add some context, otherwise the sentence will not make sesne for the reader. It is now short and to the point and presents both POVs properly, I hope. --Zappaz 01:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fiction-based NRMs

I've just created a "Fiction-based NRMs" section in the article - although I believe it's good regarding accuracy and NPOV, it could probably use some work style-wise. Help? KickAir8P~ 03:51, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Since then the page has been reformatted by someone other than me. I have now returned a previous reference to the fiction-based NRM Matrixism.- Anonymous 2005 Apr 29
Have re-posted reference to Matrixism as some people have deleted it repeatedly without discussion. IMHO Matrixism is a notable example of a fiction based NMR.
What evidence is there that Matrixism is a real religion? How do we know it has any actual adherents? Just having a free website hardly qualifies. This appears to be a fictional fiction-based NMR. Have there been any newspaper articles about it? -Willmcw 04:42, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
It seems reasonable from a scholarly point of view to assume that there are in fact more than 500 people who would consider themselves Matrixists in light of the census figures for Jedi'ism. Many people take their religion lightly but it remains none-the-less their religion. To date I have read two newspaper articles that have been written on the subject of Matrixism.
That would be more of a guess than an assumption. What are the two articles you are referring to? Also, please sign your talk page contributions by adding four tildes {~~~~). Thanks, -Willmcw 08:07, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
In the academic study of religion they do not call it guessing they call it estimating. I do not have the references handy but they were in newspapers in Seattle, Washington, USA and Sydney, Australia. ~Anonymous
The Jedi census figures were the result of a *practical joke*, not an actual religion, vandal linkspammer (note: I will continue to call you this until you register an account and take responsibility for your edits). — Phil Welch 08:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just because you say it does not make it true. There is good reason to estimate the number of Matrixists to be significant. ~Anonymous
That goes for everyone here. When you find the verifiable sources about Matrixism actually having a significant number of adherents then it will be appropriate to add to lists of religions. In the meantime, thanks for signing your post. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:10, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
One can easily email Matrixism at matrixism2069@yahoo.com to verify their numbers. Between that and the web traffic it seems that there is easily enough evidence to account for five hundred believers that registered via email. ~Anonymous
Wait, so we email one person (presumably the same person who set up the web page) and we're supposed to take their word for it? This is ridiculous! — Phil Welch 18:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
It's not "ridiculous" at all. In fact it is quite reasonable to accept such evidence. Without testimony where would we be? ~Anonymous
Please find the newspaper articles that you mentioned. Until the other editors have seen some verifiable proof that this group exists beyond a webpage we should not include it in an encyclopedia article. This is nothing personal. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:36, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
One newspaper article on Matrixism can be found here http://www.jtnews.net/news/archive/2004/comnewsNov22004.html under the title "When Movies Inspire a Religion". How do you define "verifable proof" in the case of new religious movements? ~Anonymous
Thanks for that. However, all that article does is refer to the website. For a religion to exist in the real world it has to have real adherents. For it to be notable, it should have many adherents. So in this instance a report on a gathering of adherents would be fine. Until we can find that evidence, please stop adding back the reference. The consensus of editors is that it does not belong. But evidence will sway us. Bring it on! Thanks, -Willmcw 11:06, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
A publicized gathering of adherents isn't a requisite for being a notable religious movement. New religious movements are inherently dicy business in many parts of the world to say the least. Thus they are often secretive and reclusive. In this particular case the followers of Matrixism have even more to fear with one of their chief tenets being a major felony in most parts of the world. Phil Welch has asked elsewhere for the opinion of experts in the field. I have given him the names and academies of three respected professors of religion. His response to this was silence. ~Anonymous
I never saw it, and I've been watching Talk:New religious movement, Talk:The Matrix, and Talk:List of religions rather closely. Care to share them again? — Phil Welch 19:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way, at least in the United States, a gathering of Matrixists wouldn't fall under any more legal scrutiny than your local Hempfest. Although if you're afraid the Agents will get you, that would at least be consistent. — Phil Welch 19:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
To recap the evidence we have; a newspaper article (though I have seen another one), an active website, the testimony of the contact people at Matrixism and the opinion of three well credentialed experts that Matrixism is a notable new religious movement. ~Anonymous
The newspaper does nothing but rehash the point that the website exists. The active website is a Geocities page that anyone could have put up. The "contact people at Matrixism" consist of one (1) email address, that probably goes to the same person who set up the website. I have yet to see these "three well-credentialed experts". — Phil Welch 19:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I cut this out of the Talk: Matrix/Archive which you created:
"Cite one "religious scholar" who even considers Matrixism a serious religion. — Phil Welch 09:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Chris Hartney and Dr. Edward F. Crangle of the University of Sydney and Dr. Adam Possami of the University of Western Australia all work in the field of religious study and take the religion of Matrixism seriously. Just because it may be more of a a regional phenomenon is no reason for its censure from wikipedia. ~Anonymous "
I guess you must have missed it before you tried to bury the discussion. ~Anonymous
I apologize. There was a deluge of commentary on that article related to the Maoist movie review, and I wasn't watching individual changes that closely.
Please cite specifically where these three scholars indicated that they had researched Matrixism and found it to be a legitimate and notable new religious movement. — Phil Welch 21:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Zero Google hits for "Chris Hartney"+"Matrixism". The only Google hits for "Chris Hartney"+"Matrix" are for a discussion about "the depiction of post-modern religious concerns in science fiction (Blade Runner, The Matrix etc)". [1] This seems to be an analysis of the movie itself and aspects of the fictional world it depicts, not of any real-life religion called "Matrixism". You seem to be misrepresenting something here... if not, cite an article published by one of these professors in a scholarly journal about a religion called "Matrixism". -- Curps 21:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

"Anonymous" is correct that a publicized gathering of adherents is not a requisite for being a notable religious movement. I suggested it as a way of proving that there actually are adherents. Emails from folks who claim that they "practice" matrixism do not indicate that the group has real adherents who actually follow the creed. Please keep looking for usable, verifiable evidence of this groups existence. In the meantime, please stop adding them to articles talking about real religions that have real followers. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:58, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

There is enough proof for many religious scholars. Your denial of the evidence at hand is proof of your biased POV. ~Anonymous
Comments like that are inappropriate. Editors here have been very patient and have invested signigificant time into trying to help you find support for this material. The fact that neither you nor anybody else can find any real substantiation for this group's existence is not due to bias, but the lack of such information. You have only provided us with a website, an article that refers to that website, and the names of some academics who discuss the depiction of religion in the movie "the Matrix" but who do not refer to Matrixism. So all really have is one website that is not sufficient evidence of either existence or notability. While we have extended good faith in the past, it is becoming increasingly likely that this attempt to insert apparently false material into the encyclopedia is really part of a hoax. Please stop wasting the time of encyclopedia editors. Thank you. -Willmcw 22:09, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Examples of NRMs

I concur with user:Philwelch's edit that removed the entire list of examples of NRMs. There was no real need for even one example, much less twenty. There is a comprehensive list of religions which is better than anything we could add here. -Willmcw 10:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that a list of NRM's is a useful addition to this page. ~Anonymous

And given that you're an anonymous linkspamming vandal who either doesn't know or doesn't care about how Wikipedia is run, your opinion is worthless. — Phil Welch 19:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The list of NRM's has now been completely merged to List of religions. In fact, I see that one of the guys who was editing the list in this article has gone over there to clean it up a little. I think the reference is all we need, the information is still there. — Phil Welch 19:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Phil, this is ridiculous. The "List of Religions" is a list of all religions--new or old. The NRM entry ought to have at least some representative examples. I tried to give a few for each major geographical or religious category, covering both 19th and 20th centuries. You flushed the whole thing, in favor of another list which is largely irrelevent to the NRM issue. (May 4 2005)

No, because I specifically linked to the section on "new religious movements". There was a short list before, and I didn't mind that, but someone just decided to go and expand it, and it was ruining the article. Normally I would have created a list of new religious movements, but there was already a subsection of List of religions devoted to the subject, so I merged it. — Phil Welch 01:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. I have just formatted the wikilink. --Zappaz 01:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Religious scholars who allegedly take Matrixism seriously

Our anonymous linkspamming vandal alleges: "Dr. Chris Hartney and Dr. Edward F. Crangle of the University of Sydney and Dr. Adam Possami of the University of Western Australia all work in the field of religious study and take the religion of Matrixism seriously. Just because it may be more of a a regional phenomenon is no reason for its censure from wikipedia." As follows is an examination of his claims. He is, of course, welcome to provide additional evidence if he is able.

Dr. Chris Hartney

Dr. Chris Hartney is a religious scholar at the University of Sydney. A Google search on "Chris Hartney" and "Matrix" returns two results [2]. (A Google search on "Chris Hartney" and "Matrixism" returns no results. [3]) The only result that applies to the film The Matrix is a course listing. The two applicable course listings are as follows:

RLST 1004 New Religious Movements

6 Credit Points. B.A., B.EC.(SOC.SC.), B.SC.,B.COM. Dr Cusack, Prof Trompf.Session: 2. Classes: one 2 hour lecture & one 1 hour tutorial.Prerequisite: . Corequisite: RLST1002. Assessment: One 2,000w essay, take-home exam, tutorial participation. An introduction to the study of twentieth century new religious movements. The course will cover ISKCON, The Ananda Marga, Rastafarianism, and the New Age among others. It will examine the controversies that have surrounded new religious movements (including brainwashing, deprogamming, the role of the media in religious controversy, and religion and the law).

RLST 2028 Religion and Film

8 Credit Points. B.A., B.EC.(SOC.SC.), DIP.ARTS. Dr Cusack. Session: 1. Classes: one 2hr lecture, one 1hr tutorial. Prerequisite: . Assumed knowledge: 12 Junior credit points of Religion Studies, or their equivalent to be assessed by the Department. Assessment: 2000wd Take home exam (30%); 3000wd essay (50%); tutorial participation (20%). This unit analyses the position of religion in a range of films, such as the presentation of Buddhism in recent Western films (Kundun, Little Buddha, Seven Years in Tibet); the image of Christianity in 'sword and sandal' epics (Ben Hur, Quo Vadis); the role of film in familiarising Western audiences with unfamliar religious traditions (e.g. the PNG ethnographc documentaries of Bob Connolly and Robin Anderson, First Contact etc); and the depiction of post-modern religious concerns in science fiction (Blade Runner, The Matrix etc).

Neither of these specifically mentions the "Matrixism" religion.

Google Scholar search on "Chris Hartney matrix" returns nothing applicable: [4].

Dr. Edward F. Crangle

No results of "Edward Crangle" and "Matrixism" [5]. No results for "Edward Crangle" and "Matrix" [6]. No results for "Edward F. Crangle" and "Matrixism". [7]. No results for "Edward F. Crangle" and "Matrix". [8]. Dr. Edward F. Crangle is at the University of Sydney in the Department of Studies in Religion. [9]

Google Scholar search on "Edward Crangle Matrix" returns nothing applicable: [10].

Dr. Adam Possami/Adam Possomai

No results for "Adam Possami" and "Matrixism" [11]. No results for "Adam Possami" and "Matrix". [12]. Google detects alternate spelling of "Possami", which I then attempted.

No results for "Adam Possomai" and "Matrixism" [13]. Six results for "Adam Possomai" and "Matrix" [14]. Only applicable result is summarized below.

"Adam Possamai is Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Western Sydney." His book, "Religion and Popular Culture", published 2005, is synopsized as follows:

Popular culture can no longer be exclusively seen as a source of escapism. It can amuse, entertain, instruct, and relax people, but what if it provides inspiration for religion? The Church of All Worlds, the Church of Satan and Jediism from the Star Wars series are but three examples of new religious groups that have been greatly inspired by popular culture to (re)create a religious message. These are hyper-real religions, that is a simulacrum of a religion partly created out of popular culture which provides inspiration for believers/consumers. These postmodern expressions of religion are likely to be consumed and individualised, and thus have more relevance to the self than to a community and/or congregation. On the other hand, religious fundamentalist groups tend, at times, to resist this synergy between popular culture and religion, and at other times, re-appropriate popular culture to promote their own religion. Examples of this re-appropriation are Christian super-hero comics and role playing games, Bible-based PC games, and 'White Metal' music. To explore these new phenomena, this book views itself as the 'hyper-real testament' of these new religious phenomena by addressing the theories, among many others, of Baudrillard, Jameson and Lipovetsky, and by exploring the use of fictions such as those from Harry Potter, The Matrix, Star Trek, Buffy and The Lord of the Rings. [15]

No reference is made to Matrixism or any other Matrix-inspired new religious movement.

Google Scholar search on "Adam Possamai Matrix" returns nothing applicable: [16].

The problem you have here is solely relying on whether something written by a scholar is on the Internet. Adam Possamai does devote a short page to Matrixism as an example of hyper-real religion in his book Religion and Popular Culture. It was added in just before the book was scheduled to go to press. Matrixism is not an example of fan-fiction sites, but purports to be a hyper-real religion, with some 400 devotees associated with its website. Possamai has also discussed Jedi-ism as a religion in the Ausralian Religion Studies Review, the journal now distributed by Equinox Publishing. Essay abstracts are on the Equinox website for the journal.

Buffy has a religion? How do I join? Some great books on Zen and the Matrix but it's still just a fanbase and not a religion. - Tεxτurε 22:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion

I could find no evidence that any of the three academics listed above are even aware of Matrixism, much less that they consider it a serious religion and take it seriously. Unless our anonymous linkspamming vandal can provide specific evidence for his claim that the three academics listed above take the religion of "Matrixism" seriously, his claim is unfounded and there remains no concrete evidence, only constantly reiterated claims that may all come from the same individual.

Many editors, including myself, have acted in good faith, asking for evidence. Our vandal has failed to provide any. He has failed to do even the most cursory research while the brunt of the labor fell upon others of us. If he had evidence at hand, he should have presented it, and his failure to do so is damning evidence that his claims are false and that this entire thing is a hoax. We are of course willing to accept additional evidence if it is forthcoming, but I hasten to advise that unless there is independently verified evidence presented, I will not again expend the effort of doing the vandal's research for him. In the meantime, I recommend that this matter is treated as the hoax that it apparently is, and as the linkspamming vandalism that it has repeatedly proven to be.

— Phil Welch 22:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC), 20:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC) (for all unsigned, unindented comments in the section "Religious scholars who allegedly take Matrixism seriously" authored by myself)

It is a fanbase. God only knows (pun intended) what this person thinks he is gaining by portraying this fanbase to be a "religion". :) --Zappaz

I studied under both Chris and Eddie between 1999 and 2004, and never heard them discuss "Matrixism". I'm prepared to ask them both if they know anything about it. Mhacdebhandia 11:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Shinshūkyō - New Religions of Japan

I added a link to Shinshukyo in the 'See Also' section; I don't know much about NRMs in other countries, but I know that they are quite numerous and widespread in Japan. In fact, when I lived there, one of the first things they told me after arriving was "Beware of Cults." Long story short, I think Shinshūkyō deserve their own separate article. I'm going to get it started, see what I can do, but help would be most appreciated (preferably from someone who knows about the role/involvement of Shinshūkyō in Japanese culture & politics, not from someone who's an apologist for "NRMs are not cults"). Thanks. LordAmeth 12:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Which David Barrett?

The article mentions David Barrett, but there are two David Barretts. One is David V. Barrett who works for INFORM and Eileen Barker and wrote the New Believers. The other one writes mainly about Christian churches. Please clarify which one is mentioned. Thanks. Andries 19:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the article's bibliography you'll find that the Barrett in question is editor of the World Christian Encyclopedia published by Oxofrd Uni Press. The Encyc does not just look at Christian churches but surveys indigenous new religions. The reference in the article to some 6000 nrms in Africa is derived from Barrett's work which first appeared in the late 1960s and has been regularly revised.

Restored deleteion

I have restored the "NRMs and its critics" section, that was recently deleted by Irmgard without discussion. --ZappaZ 22:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

ZappaZ, the section has not been deleted, it has been moved to Opposition to cults and new religious movements, where it still is. As critics are is definitely part of the opposition, they should not be treated in detail here, but in Opposition, so we have everything together. Of course, there can be a smaller section here referring to the opposition article, but as it is, the critics take here much more place than the NRMs which are the subject of the article - this gives the (POV) impression that the critics are more important than the NRMs. So please move the bulk of the critics section to the opposition article again. Irmgard 06:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Critics

ZappaZ, the critics section here is

  • much too long in proportion to the rest of the article (are critics the most important to say about NRMs? - that's how it looks).
  • not at all NPOV - it's an unbalanced collection of negative views on critics
  • it contains materials pertaining to specific groups which should be in the articles of those specific groups not in a general article

Do you have a special reason why this material should be here and not in Opposition?

In view of the section being already too long, I don't want to add material here to make it NPOV. Please move this material to Opposition and to the specific groups and reduce it here to one paragraph - it's not that I want to delete the material, I just want it to be in the place where it belongs and where people are looking for it. --Irmgard 19:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


I see your point. I would suggest that we have just a summary here and a link to main article Opposition to cults and new religious movements. Any text here that gets deleted and that it is not already covered (together with the refs) should need to be merged into that article as well. --ZappaZ 03:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The term "new religious movement" in the media

We should write that the term is rarely used by the media if we can find a source, probably partially because it is a mouthful. Even Eileen Barker used the term cult instead for this reason in an article about cult watch groups. Andries 08:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Removing errant attribution

The term "cult" was not "coined by Max Weber." He's not an English speaker, and the term antedates him by three centuries.[17] --AuntieMormom 00:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientology and L Ron Hubbard

I note this page does not mention one of the best known NRM's, Scientology - has this been discussed in the past? MarkThomas 12:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Automated peer review

(cur) (last) 05:19, 21 October 2006 Joseph Solis in Australia (Talk | contribs) m (→References)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: harbor (A) (British: harbour), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), any more (B) (American: anymore).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 00:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 19:34, 22 November 2006 Kmarinas86 (Talk | contribs)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 00:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Anton Hein is not a reliable source

Hein is not a relaible source to be quoted per WP:RS. His opinions appear only on his self published website and nowhere else in the press or scholarly literature on any subject. I will be removing material attributed to him or his personal website here and elsewhere unless anyone can make a good case that he fits the guidelines in WP:RS.BabyDweezil 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

He has been mentioned by Doug Cowan. [18]
I find it noteworthy that you're mentioning him being a sex offender with anti-cult (!) expert Rick Ross as source, while in the Barbara Schwarz article, you are suggesting that an official court document mentioning her is about another person. Obviously, you're playing games here. Stop it. --Tilman 19:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are that concerned about people discovering that Hein is indeed a documented sex offender, then stop trying to improperly use him as a WP:RS. Cowan only mentions Hein in the context of demonstrating that Hein is a bigot and NOT a legitimate researcher on NRM's, but an ideologue. Do you have a WP:RS that considers Hein legitimate? BabyDweezil 19:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't about Hein being a sex offender (that's well known and the details are on his site). It is about you sometimes claiming that people aren't reliable sources, but then using them in your argument, when it fits you. --Tilman 20:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Cowan clearly thinks that Hein is a noteworthy figure in the "cult wars", and this opinion from such a prominent NRM scholar clearly does make Hein and his opinions on the subject of cults notable. That is all that is required.
Your assertion that Hein is a bigot is completely irrelevant. I strongly consider Hubbard to be an extreme bigot, but I do not have the temerity of even thinking of using that as argument to support deletions of his opinions from Wikipedia. The "bigot" argument is bogus.

Justanother, you are deleting what is now very well-sourced material. I don't understand where you picked up the notion that any opinions that strongly criticize Scientology are ipso facto not admissible to Wikipedia articles. This is yet another innovative theory. I suggest that you won't get very far with this at all in DR. Will you next try to AfD all of the Scientology-related articles? Probably not, and what you are doing here is just as misguided and hopeless as that would be. Once again, please stop deleting well-sourced material. Tanaats 19:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

xfamily wiki

The link to the xfamily wiki that had been deleted earlier was properly deleted. see WP:EL regarding not using wiki's in ELs.BabyDweezil 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

NRMs and their critics - POV

Tagged this section. Obviously POV, look at the treatment of Scientology. Not sure how to fix. Suggestions? --Justanother 17:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a section specifically labeled as being a discussion of criticism. How is the mention of criticism in a section devoted to criticism POV? Especially since the greater part of the section is criticism of the criticism? Tanaats 18:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Because the only "critic" cited is Anton Hein, who is not even close to being a WP:RS, and whose "criticisms" apparently have never been published anywhere except on his fringe extremist NRM-bashing personal website. Hein is probably more well known for his felony conviction as a sex offender than as a critic. The heading "NRMs and their critics" is also too broad to have any meaning, since criticisms are obviously directed at specific NRMs, not "NRMs" (except perhaps for Hein, who is an evangelical bigot opposed to anyone who disagrees with his view of Christianity). BabyDweezil 16:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Another editor brought up (on my talk page) that point that calling Scn a "hate group" is a misapplication of the term. I would also say that such casual usage dilutes the term. --Justanother 17:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
There are instances wherein bigots will attempt to turn the phrase on its head; e.g., white supremacists have been known to label groups such as the NAACP as "hate groups." BabyDweezil 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Justanother,
  • Hein is indeed quite a "notable figure" in the "cult wars."
  • I absolutely agree with you that "cult critics" are not critical of all NRMs. They are indeed critical of only a subset. I would support a change, for example, to "Criticism of some NRMs." Thanks for bring this up.
  • Are Scientologists also "evangelical bigots"? Perhaps you don't have this attitude as an individual, but the Church as an organization is most emphatically reported as being opposed to anyone who disagrees with them. Just ask Paulette Cooper. If you indeed support "religious freedom", then I don't understand why you would implicitly deny Hein's right to believe that evangelical Christianity teachs "the truth" and that other religions don't. Tanaats 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Tanaats, what it boils down to is using wikipedia to further biased "spew". The non-RS material has to come out and be replaced with RS material. I'll start. --Justanother 18:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly I can find RS that includes quotes that certain anti-cult groups, old Cult Awareness Network[19] and Lisa McPherson Trust[20], are "hate groups" so that part of the equation is sourcable. But I do not find anything RS that includes a quote calling CoS a hate group. I also find very little on Hein. Perhaps someone else can do better. --Justanother 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"On his sign was a swastika with a Scientology cross at the center. It said: 'Stop Scientology's Hate, Lies and Bigotry'." Tanaats 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, it is another innovative theory that POS material is not allowed in an article. It certainly is allowed, otherwise we'd have to slash through many many articles in Wikipedia. The way to attain NPOV is not to remove "POV material", it is to add counterpoint material. Please leave the Hein material in. If you wish to start DR over it then that would be most acceptable. Tanaats 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
POV material is allowed if supported by a reliable source. Tanaats, if you have a secondary source that can be used to source Hein's "views" than please supply it. In the meantime, please don't continue acting on your own novel theory that any POV nonsense "certainly is allowed." Thank you. BabyDweezil 16:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In this case, it is Hein's opinions that are being quoted. His own website is an excellent RS as to what his opinions are.
Please stop unilaterally deleting material without consensus. We have been over this multiple times on other pages. This situation is no different. Tanaats 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
All due respect but NO. You do not get to repeat his non-notable spew here. That is a try at a back-door to violate WP:NPOV and WP:V. All spew must first be presented in RS. If his opinions are not notable enough to show up in RS then they are not notable to show up here! --Justanother 21:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yet again, please refer to WP:RS—a personal website, or as you accurately call it, Tanaats, "His own website," is not a reliable source. Please see self published sources:
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
Tanaats, just what exactly are you not understanding about this?? BabyDweezil 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The condescension is unnecessary.
It only says "largely not acceptable." This site is by far the major voice of the "Christian counter-cult movement" on the web. As such it is acceptable as a source in articles on subjects directly addressed by that movement. Otherwise you are silencing the voice of that movement. Furthermore, this "movement" is truly major topic in the writings of NRM scholars. You can't just cut the counterpoint material published by that movement out of these articles, to leave only the critical statements of such scholars.
Additionally, in this particular case, it is certainly acceptable to quote the site of which Hein is the publisher in order to substantiate Hein's own statements in the article. Tanaats 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, this statement of yours is the very opposite of showing "due respect": "That is a try at a back-door to violate WP:NPOV and WP:V.". It is a PA in that it directly impugns me as having unethical motives. Please stop doing that.
Your labeling of the material as "non-notable" and "spew" is highly POV in its own right.
Again, please stop deleting material from the article without consensus. Tanaats 01:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, those opinions are "non-notable" if not represented in RS. So they have no place here so we do not have to worry about "sourcing them" from biased, non-RS sites. --Justanother 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The site is an excellent RS for for the purposes of reporting on the views of the "Christian counter-cult movement." Tanaats 04:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tanaats, i have no intention of being condescending; my point is that the perception of Hein as being a major voice (or even a minor voice) is not backed up in any way by the public record. And his "movement" is far from a major topic for NRM researchers, who spend 99% of their time researching religious movements, not rebutting bigots like Hein. BabyDweezil 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Also . . . I don't know, Tanaats. If I started taking every insult against Hubbard or Scientology in these talk pages as a "personal attack" then I would have a pretty full time job! But I don't so I don't. And I don't need your permission to improve these articles along the guidelines of WP:PILLARS nor do I intend to ask. In my book, you still owe me an apology for that creepy attack on me during Smee's 3RR (where was the "due respect" there). I calls 'em like I sees 'em and if I see a bunch of non-RS, non-notable highly biased "opinion" snuck in then I wonder just what is the intention (actually I don't wonder much at all). --Justanother 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, none of this a justication for your PA's.
As for the creepy attack... What I did was to accurately report your earlier statements. The thing was, the discussion on ANI/3RR of your soundly rejected 3RR complaint against Smee wasn't at all the right place for me to mention your earlier PA's. That's why I deleted those statements there, after an admin pointed this out.
No, you don't need my personal approval as an individual. But you don't have consensus from the editors here to make these deletions. Tanaats 04:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
"accurately report your earlier statements"??? You misinterpreted my direct communication to BD as applying to someone else (I will AGF that it was an "error" and not say "deliberately misinterpreted") and you misattributed BD's remark as mine (I will AGF that it was an "error" and not say "deliberately misattributed") and inappropriately misplaced those creepy claims on a non-related incident on an ADMIN board (I will AGF that it was an "error" and not say "deliberately misplaced".) Hmmm, I seem to be assuming a lot of good faith here. --Justanother 14:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
BD, we don't need a secondary source that specifically says "the Apologetics Index is a major voice the for 'Christian countercult' on the web" in order to use the AI as a source. Tanaats 04:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course not, but you do need secondary sources that indicate that it is notable, and there are exactly zero thus far. BabyDweezil 04:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Where exactly do you find in the guidelines that a web source must always be removed from of an article if it is not specifically announted in a secondary source? If I went around Wikipedia unilaterally deleting all website sources that weren't annointed in a secondary source I'd get myself promptly blocked, and for good reason. Tanaats 04:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
How about in WP:RS, which Ive already quoted for you:
"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." BabyDweezil 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial"

What is gained by adding the term "controversial" to the lede of the article? We already say in the into that:

  • Its use is not universally accepted among the groups to which it is applied.[1]

What more does this term add? -Will Beback · † · 03:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC) It adds that it is also not universally accepted among the scholars who study these groups... Sfacets 03:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The article says that "This term was adopted by Western scholars in the 1970s as an alternative to the older term cult, which during the cult debate of the 1970s acquired a pejorative connotation" -- in other words, it was introduced specifically to avoid the controversial connotations of the word cult. Can you provide a citation to a reliable source that says the term is currently controversial? The statement "Its use is not universally accepted among the groups to which it is applied.[1]" may indicate that the groups that are under study do not like it, but is the term controversial among sociologists or academics? The use of the term in academic publications such as "Multiculturalism and Minority Religions in Britain: Krishna Consciousness, Religious Freedom and the Politics of Location (Curzon Studies in New Religious Movements)" (2001, ISBN 0700713921) suggests that it is a standard academic term. It also appears to be a standard term based on the frequency with which it is used in this bibliography. Here is a link to the Routledge Press book category "New Religious Movements" under which the Curzon series apparently falls. Here is a link to the University of Virginia's Religious Movements homepage, with a tribute to the course on "New Religious Movements that Prof. Jeffrey K. Hadden had taught at the University of Virginia for more than twenty years". Here is a link to an overview from the Hartford Institute that also treats it as a standard term. Buddhipriya 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Judith Coney says in her book “A response to Religious Liberty in Western Europe by Massimo Introvigne" that 'NRM' is a term that is interchangeable with "cult".

for any given NRM, a sociologist of religion may view it as a group with a dominant 'world-rejecting', 'world-accomodating', or 'world affirming' orientation (wallis 1984); the tabloid press are likely to portray it as a 'mind-bending cult'; the anti-cult movement will characterise it as a soul or psyche-destroying organisation practising 'mental cohersion' (...) an e-member may see it as a group which fails to live entirely up to it's precepts (...) each view is formulated on the basis of different considerations

There are other writers who agree that the term is ontroversial, such as Adam Possamai (who proposed another term), Michael York, and Timothy Miller.
So we can see that there is debate among scholars over the suitability of using NRM to describe these groups. Sfacets 04:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Judith Coney's 1999 book on Sahaja Yoga is entitled "Sahaja Yoga: Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement" (London: Curzon Press) ISBN 0-7007-1061-2. The book was published by Curzon Press as part of their "Curzon Studies in New Religious Movements". On the talk page for Sahaja Yoga you said "For the record, I never stated that Coney had said that the term was "controversial". Sfacets 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)" see diff Buddhipriya 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are quoting me here? Sfacets 04:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In the previous line you had quoted Judith Coney, apparently to establish that the term was controversial. Perhaps I misunderstood this diff. You seemed to be quoting Coney to prove that the title of Coney's other book was controversial. Buddhipriya 04:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say she doesn't use it - there are a number of other terms which are being used increasingly, however NRM is still the most prominent. Sfacets 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
What book is "“A response to Religious Liberty in Western Europe by Massimo Introvigne"? Are you referring to this letter to the editor: "A response to Religious Liberty in Western Europe by Massimo Introvigne, ICJ Vol. 5, No. 2"? -Will Beback · † · 05:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently some groups don't mind the term, as evidenced by this page for Siddha Yoga which quite directly refers to it as a New Religious Movement at the top of the page, with no evidence of conflict on the talk page. The Category:New religious movements seems quite brazenly open about it. Buddhipriya 05:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I just removed that term from the page. It isn't that the group minds or doesn't mind, or there is controversy over the term. Siddha Yoga is a part of Hinduism and more specifically Kashmir Shaivism. That disqualifies it as a new religious movement (the opening sentence says that a new religious movement is not part of any established denomination). TheRingess (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)



This comment was written in response to Talk:Sahaja Yoga#New Religious Movement. However, it's a passing issue there, so I'm duplicating my comment here with its useful references for both article source use and future debate use when this issue comes up again.
"According to some authors (eg Coney, Judith 1998) 'New Religious Movement' has negative connotations, being easily interchangeable with "sect" or "cult" " I'd have to see the original statement, but Coney is probably wrong and/or being misinterpreted, mentioning a decidedly minor view, or referring to an irreducible odium for which there is no language remedy.
• First, groups referred as NRMs or any other term are inherently disliked by the global public because of their competition with major religions, and this will never change. Therefore any term of description including scientific value-neutral terms, will always carry some degree of odius connotation that doesn't rise to the level of pejorative.
To quote CultFAQ.org (a Christian Apologetics website):

...if deservedly controversial groups and movements like Aum Shinrikyo, the Church of Scientology, and the Unification Church were identified as, say, 'pineapples,' the term 'pineapple' would take on a negative connotation the moment people realize that you are using the term as a euphemism for 'cult.' -- 'New Religious Movements' and other Euphemism

By analogy, to truthfully call someone a Jew can convey an odium, even though "Jew" is clearly not pejorative. The Jewish movie producer Mel Brooks once did an angry TV rant on this issue, and basically said 'I'm a Jew, so what, get over it.'
• Second, and most importantly, "New Religious Movement" is not "easily interchangeable with "sect" or "cult" ". That was the original intent, but according to the late Professor Jeffrey K. Hadden, it didn't happen:

The use of the concept "new religious movements" in public discourse is problematic for the simple reason that it has not gained currency. Speaking bluntly from personal experience, when I use the concept "new religious movements," the large majority of people I encounter don't know what I'm talking about. I am invariably queried as to what I mean. And, at some point in the course of my explanation, the inquirer unfailing responds, "oh, you mean you study cults!" -- Conceptualizing "Cult" and "Sect" at The Religious Movements Page."

Professor Hadden has a great deal more to say about the exacting scientific and communication uses for terms "cult", "sect", and "New Religious Movement (NRM)". Both Hadden and CultFAQ.org make a more general point about defending the use of defined language. Haddon in particular defends use of "cult" and "sect" in scientific publications, and objects to the proliferation of terms surrounding the introduction of NRM. The NRM term was intentionally designed to meet the objections to pejoritive populist use of "cult". Yet precisely because the public has not accepted "NRM" as a drop-in replacement for the populist usage of "cult", NRM remains suitable as a value-neutral term for use in Wikipedia articles. Milo 07:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If specific groups have been identified as New Religious Movements by academics who have studied them, is it appropriate to place the Wiki category tag for NRM on the article? I see that some have it, but others do not. Is there any Wiki practice that can be generalized? Buddhipriya 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
With caution. Categorization is difficult, as there may be no consensus of sources to establish such categorization. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OLD religious movements ?

Is there a WP article on old (defined as "extinct") religions? An example would be the pre-islamic beliefs of the Middle East. Low Sea 12:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Guru Klarkay?

Removed the edit made by 82.39.59.152 at 22:45, January 16, 2008. Sentence is ungrammatical, and unreferenced. I can find no other reference to "Guru Klarkay". Text removed is

In Europe, NRMs are much less common than in other parts of the world, although some small NRMs, such as off-shoots of the Cargo Cults, and the following of Guru Klarkay in parts of Northern Europe, especially in Scandanavia.
 Rojomoke (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

New religious movements in the media

The section recently added by Jossi, is a straight-forward criticism of the media's portrayal of NRM's. As written it does not merit it's own section, especially under the title New religious movements in the media, since offers nothing but one critisism by one author and makes no attempt to give a balanced view of the media's protrayal of NRM's. In my opinion, it belongs in the Criticism section which begins with the lead: "Criticism of some new religious movements, a subset of which are often described by their critics as being "cults," has been a contentious issue" So that is where I have moved it. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 02:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The text is now in the History of the term section rather than the Criticism section. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 02:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's Critisim

It's Critisim... By it;s verry nature it's bised... get over yourselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.189.253 (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Extensive description of disputes is quite uninformative

This article with the extensive description of dispute is quite uninformative. I admit that I am partially guilty to that by my edits to the article years ago, but I am surprised that they persisted. Questions that should be answered is how many are there? What percentage of the population is involved? Etc. Andries (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

New religious Movememts are known as Cults in the general public - Scholars who use the term know this, and acknowledge that when they classify as a NRM others (especially the Anti Cult Movement) calls a cult. Basically this article is POV fork from Cult which has been created to keep the academic viewpoint out of the article on cults where it belongs. Therefore I suggest that this article is merged and redirected to Cult.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No merger. NRM is a well established term, there is simply no disputing that it should have a main article dealing specifically with: the term; its history; its usage. The cult vs NRM dispute is a separate debate entirely and should not be used to justify a merger. It's entirely feasible to have an NRM sub-section in the Cult article and also provide a main page here. Measles (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
No merger. Agree completely with Measles rationale.Vontrotta (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
No merger. The Cult article is about as long as it needs to be. If this article were merged with it, there would soon come a time when someone else would say, "This Cult article needs to be shortened," and the NRM section would be a good candidate for a spin-off article. So a section in the Cult article devoted to a summary of the NRM appears to be the best way to go.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  19:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Support Merge I agree with Maunus' reasoning.Simonm223 (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
No merger. Strongly agree with what was already said by Measles (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak no support. Measles said it well, but the two topics are indeed closely related.--Edward130603 (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No merger. While the topics are closely related, I believe there is sufficient difference to maintain separate articles. TechBear (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding the term "Cult"

Aside from combining articles with "cults" debate, might I suggest an explanation or addition of the relation between cult and NRM in the FIRST paragraph or up front in the article? I saw the term elsewhere and had to read the entire Wikipedia section before I understood the vernacular as "cult." Additionally, I felt compelled to corroborate this discovery by looking elsewhere online. Surely, this could have been easily avoided. If the issue has to do with neutrality or being "politically correct," I'm sure appropriate phrasing could be created such as "popularly or sometimes known as "cult'". It seems to me, however, the interest of clarity and understanding outweighs the possibility of offense. Jeffrey Hadden makes the same argument as found in the following article: http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-newreligiousmovements.html Your thoughts? Sirvice626 (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Sufficient qualified academic work in the area of NRM's exists; enough to deem any explicit statement regarding the interchangeability of the term 'NRM' with 'cult' redundant. I don't think the site you are pointing to is solid enough to be cited here. Measles (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of an encyclopedic lede is to provide a short, concise description of the article's topic. Expanding the lede of this article to include material already sufficiently covered in the article's first section would serve no purpose other than making the lede longer and less concise. TechBear (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Solid enough? I'm using the quote Hadden contained on the page, not the page itself and I'm not suggesting the page be a source for the article only to consider modifying the "lede" as you call it. I'm sorry gentlemen. I'm sensing an agenda on both your parts. It should come as no surprise to you that the term NRM is not widely known especially by people outside the field. The common though less neutral term is indeed "cult." Considering encyclopedias are written for the masses I would suggest you reconsider. Additionally, if your only objection is added length, I can't imagine why you would continue to redact my change. Again, I suspect you may be protecting an opinion, however I could be mistaken. Sirvice626 (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Agreed. The lede is a summary of the article. It is not a shield or mask. If this term replaces the pejorative "cult" (and it does), then this important fact ought to be mentioned right up front.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  08:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) To editor Measles... Your reversion comment is: "Wording not agreed, and does not read accurately as currently written." Please explain exactly how the wording is inaccurate, when about the same wording is embellished upon in the first section? Also, since the first section does go into the fact that NRM is a relatively new term that was developed as an alternative to "cult", then why are you averse to a short note about this up front in the lede? Why hide this fact? Editor Sirvice626 makes an excellent point about clarity above. I agree with this editor that more clarity is needed for general readers. Placing a brief note as I did in the lede sentence, or somewhere near it, will improve the clarity of the article and improve this encyclopedia, don't you agree?
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  09:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Measles, but I will answer anyway. First off, I refer you to what I wrote above in this discussion. Second, I refer you to Cult. The lede from that article makes it clear that "new religious movement" is NOT, as you put it, "an alternative to the pejorative word 'cult'". Cults and NRMs are different labels referring to different things. TechBear (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Eh, no. It is the same thing and NRM was specifically created to replace the pejorative term cult. That is also what the lead at cult says.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The lede in the Cult article makes it clear that the term was created by sociologists specifically because the popular use of "cult" had come to mean "groups seen as authoritarian, exploitative and possibly dangerous." In other words, the people who actually make a professional study of such matters needed a separate term because they were studying something significantly different.
The disctinction between NRMs and cults is sufficiently made in the first section of this article. There is no reason to add it to the lede. TechBear (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary according to WP:LEAD any important content in the articles body must be summarised in the lead. If the origin of the term is important enough to have its own section is has to be in the lead. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, my position is not that I object to mention of it in the lead, I object to the way it is being presented, and the wording used to describe what the term NRM implies. Stating that it is "an alternative to the pejorative word 'cult'" is overtly simplistic, and is, in my view, a misrepresentation of the matter. Let's please hammer out wording that we can all agree on first. Measles (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Measles, I admire your open mindedness. It appears as though most of us are on the same page about including a reference in the lead (same as lede?). Having said that, how to phrase it, I'll leave to those more qualified, maybe "sometimes referred to as cult?" Sirvice626 (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEDE and Wiktionary:lede for an explanation, Sirvice626. I've added a reworded, clarification sentence to the lede, and I sincerely hope that it is agreeable to everyone?
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  05:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm somewhat skeptical of the judgment in using the terms "pejorative" and "derogatory" (as opposed to "considered by some to be pejorative or derogatory"), I'm willing to compromise. Thank you. How do the others feel? Sirvice626 (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Compromise can be a good thing, so I changed the sentence a little to... "This term was adopted by Western scholars to substitute for the popular term, cult, and is free from any uncomplimentary meanings of that term."
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  09:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Except that your phrasing amounts to original research, specifically "is free from any uncomplimentary meanings of that term." According to whom? And by what standard is is possible to make such a blanket statement? By what metric do you call the word "cult" "popular"? TechBear (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The metric is between "scholarly" (Western scholars) and "popular"; sorry, I thought this was clear.
According to the Number 2 reference citation, as positioned in the first section:
The MOS suggests that few if any inline citations be used in the lede, since it is just a summary, and the points are elaborated upon later in the article, hopefully then with inline citations. Yet of course, it's not unheard of to include the inline citation in the lede.
Moving on, TechBear, since apparently you don't believe in boldly changing an article to gather consensus, I shall enter the first paragraph here to see if anyone might suggest improvements...
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  21:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an improvement, Paine. TB, short of leaving this out of the lead entirely, will anything satisfy you? What about "This term was adopted by Western scholars as a neutral substitute for the popular term, cult?" Or is that still an issue of "by whom and by what standard?" There comes a point where dissection seems endless. I'm curious to know what others think. Sirvice626 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Your addition was removed. I restored it until a consesus is reached. Sirvice626 (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The following change was made: "In recent years the term has seen increased usage amongst scholars that view use of the word cult in describing new religions as having negative connotations." because it does not clearly demonstrate the cult was the original term used and because it does not appear here in the discussion section, I changed it back. Had this page been consulted and had it said "In recent years the term has seen increased usage amongst scholars that view the previous term, cult, as having a negative connotation" I would not have seen a reason to revert. But please, have editors left the page and why aren't these revisions bringing warning to the change makers as mine did? Sirvice626 (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sirvice626 have you a cite that explicitly states that cult is a "previous term" that NRM now universally substitutes? The cite does not appear to support this assertion and it's clear from other writings that some scholars still use the word cult to refer to exactly the same thing. I have modified the sentence you reverted so it resembles more closely what the cited source states. Measles (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I like your wording, Measles, all except for the minor problem of weasel words. "A number of" scholars creates a situation in which an editor might slap a {{How many?}} template on it. The reference source doesn't really cover what the number of scholars is.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Measles, thanks for the help. It wasn't my source. It was PE's. And I'm comfortable with the edit you made. Whether it was "previous" or presently is of no consequence to me. My only issue is that NRM is commonly used as another word for cult and the article should say so in the lead. Thanks again. Sirvice626 (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

PE the source clearly discusses the issue in terms of some scholars: "Scholars did welcome these terms, and almost unanimously adopted them in order to avoid the derogatory words "cults" and "sects": but there was never a real agreement on definitions and boundaries. Some would only include 20th century groups, some also the "new religions" founded in the 19th century. Some would use only chronological criteria, others (including the undersigned) preferred a doctrinal paradigm, speaking of "new religions" and "new religious movements" only when theology exhibited a radical departure from mainline Christianity, or from the less easily defined mainline Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. Sub-categories were introduced."
There are other sources available that appear to suggest that unanimous agreement amongst religious scholars regarding the interchangeability of the term 'NRM' with 'cult' does not exist. Measles (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Measles, in what you're citing, the groups are still commonly called "cults" regardless of what criteria are used. How about we agree to disagree and adopt PE's compromise? It may not be what we all want, but it seems we can all abide by it. Else this continues ad nauseum. Don't you agree? Sirvice626 (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with how it currently reads, it reflects the source accurately, so I don't see the issue. Can I suggest we move to WP:3O if you feel this is unacceptable to you? Measles (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Another edit was made (hopefully not done by you Measles) without discussion adding length but little value. I've changed it back to "In recent years scholars studying new religions have adopted the term as a neutral alternative to the word cult." We've already agreed on a version from both PE and Measles. I don't think an additional change or a third party is necessary. Thanks. Sirvice626 (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

with all due respect there was no agreement, and there is no concensus for a sentence that does not clearly mirror the source. Not sure why both S626 and PE appear to be disputing what is stated in the item cited. Please note also that this very matter is covered in more detail in the main body of text, the sentence in the lead now acurately summarises this. Measles (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Third opinion: No one thinks they are in a cult. Lots of people people outside of a new religious movement will see it as a cult, but use of the term might obscure objective study. That the phrase NRM is used to refer to such movements, without negative connotations, is important and deserves to be mentioned in the lead. Yaris678 (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Yaris678, for your thoughts on this, and thank you, Measles, for asking for a third opinion! It's always good to see fresh perspectives. I am good with the present wording by Sirvice626. I consider Measles' wording acceptable as well, however the points you make about near-unanimous adoption and not reaching clear agreement on definitions and boundaries might best be left for later in the article and not detailed in the summary lede.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  22:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Yaris, Maunus and PE. Measles: How you fail to see "In recent years scholars studying new religions have adopted the term as a neutral alternative to the word cult" as a rephrasing of "British sociologist Eileen Barker popularized the use of 'new religious movements', a value-free term much more palatable to scholars than 'cults' or 'sects'", I don't understand. Moreover, if you'd like to use Hadden's quote from the previous source http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-newreligiousmovements.html, you may do so. The source included in the article was PE's, not mine. However PE's rephrasing was obvious and in my opinion, accurate. If you recall, the original issue was NOT what constitutes a cult or NRM but whether the lead should make reference to the fact that NRM is a another word for cult. Sirvice626 (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion: the purpose of the lede WP:LEDE is to define the topic,summarize the article and entice the reader to continue on. It is not a place for details about history or controversial text. Therefore I recommend removing this sentence from the lede:

  • In recent years scholars studying new religions have adopted the term as a neutral alternative to the word cult.

That sentence is already included early on in the article, in a prominent place in the History section which is the appropriate place for it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's what started all this Kbob. Please take another look at the very first paragraph of this talk section. You will find that the lede did not have that sentence, or any such summary, and that is what may appear to be confusing for readers. Thank you very much for your input!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  02:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Paine, yes I did read the first part of this thread. So what I am saying is that its already in the article in an appropriate place (History section) and I don't feel it should have been added to the lede. Now that it has been added to the lede, my opinion is that it should be removed for the reasons I have stated. To have it in the lede also gives it undue weight, even if the dupe in the History section were to be removed. Regardless I think the lede needs some work, but adding this sentence on cults is moving in the wrong direction. Better to put your/our attention on defining the term more clearly and summarizing the article rather than adding a bit of history ie cult issue. Hope that helps. Cheers! -- — Kbob • Talk • 04:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Kbob, thanks for the input although I'm not sure as to why it was provided. Four of us have weighed in and a minority disagrees. Nevertheless, I would opt for that sentence to be removed from the lead IF it were the first sentence in the next paragraph. The point is, as I originally stated when I started this disucssion, the term NRM is relatively unknown and a source of confusion. For clarity's sake, I suggested it be identified with "cult" right up front. I had to read the entire article and do independant research elsewhere before understanding what an NRM was as I had never heard the term previously. Additionally, if the purpose of a lead, in part, is to define a topic, that is what "cult" is doing, defining a less commonly understood term, NRM. Aside to Measles: If there were no agreement why did you say "I'm good with how it currently reads"? Sirvice626 (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Kbob, you refer to WP:LEDE as if it agrees with your statement of 01:48, 24 September 2009. However, it actually fits more with the idea that the relationship to the term cult should be mentioned. I quote:
The relationship with the word cult establishes the context and, to some people, it will explain why the subject is interesting or notable. The quote also contradicts your idea that the relationship with the word cult should be omitted from the lead because it is mentioned elsewhere and might be considered controversial.
Yaris678 (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Yaris and thanks for your comments. Unfortunately I disagree with your interpretation of the sentence you quoted from WP:LEDE. The lede should put the article subject in the context of other subjects. That's why the guideline says to define the topic. Giving a specific history of the term is not summarizing the article its creating undue weight and POV. A specific fact about the history of the term which is somewhat vague and in my view not universally accepted amongst all scholars and academics, is better left to the History section. Anyway that's my last comment on the matter. I came to this page as a Third Opinion and I don't think its appropriate for me to be debating the issue especially with another editor who also gave a Third Opinion. I wish the current editors here the best of luck. You are good editors who are passionate about the article and I'm sure together you will make the right decision. I hope I have helped the process along just a bit. If this doesn't resolve the issue you might try the RfC noticeboard to bring more editors to discuss the issue. Here's a link to the RFC listing page. [21] Peace!-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm kinda hoping that everyone will see that I have made a more convincing argument. Of course, if there is still no consensus then Kbob is right - he and I are here to give third opinions and it wouldn't really help for us to start a second level of argument. I also agree with him that Wikipedia:Requests for comment is probably the way to go. Yaris678 (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Thank you both for coming and offering your opinions and counsel! I think the part about explaining "why the subject is . . . notable" says it all. The usage and term "NRM" is notable precisely because it does replace words like "cult" and "sect" in academic circles.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  23:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead dispute RFC

The above discussion has gotten muddy, the main point has been lost and I invite fresh input. To clarify where my dispute lies:

  • Within academic circles the term NRM is not universally interchanged with the word cult.
  • Those scholars that do use the word NRM in place of cult do not agree on the definitions and boundaries of its usage (in other words: when is a cult an NRM and vice versa).
  • The first two points are supported by the source provided: "Scholars did welcome these terms, and almost unanimously adopted them in order to avoid the derogatory words "cults" and "sects": but there was never a real agreement on definitions and boundaries. Some would only include 20th century groups, some also the "new religions" founded in the 19th century. Some would use only chronological criteria, others (including the undersigned) preferred a doctrinal paradigm, speaking of "new religions" and "new religious movements" only when theology exhibited a radical departure from mainline Christianity, or from the less easily defined mainline Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. Sub-categories were introduced."
  • The current sentence in the lead is not a clear summary; despite material derived from the above featuring in the main body of text.
  • I propose the following sentence as a solution to this: "In recent years scholars studying new religions have almost unanimously adopted the term as a neutral alternative to the word cult but they have not reached agreement on definitions and boundaries."
I think the distinction that is raised here is pretty clear, if you see what it is, and have new wording that hits the mark, do offer it up. Thanks! Measles (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
RFC response: I like the idea, but I might break it up into two sentences, separating the material after "but" out in a separate sentence. Otherwise, it seems a good way of addressing the problem. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Measles, this is a situation I brought up for the SOLE purpose of explaining that NRM is commonly used in place of "cult." What constitutes a cult was NOT the issue raised nor was it discussed. It is another matter entirely. If you would like to add to the history section on NRM explaining that there are differences of opinion as to what makes something a cult, I would encourage you to do so. This discussion was not devoted to that. Additionally, you site the source PE provided as being the authority when I've provided another source, and there are many (see: www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm, www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-newreligiousmovements.html, shii.org/knows/New_religious_movements, etc), that say the same thing; NRM is a new and nice way of saying "cult." On a more personal note, I posted a question for discussion. A majority opinion was reached. The minority asked for a third party opinion and two conflicting third party opinions were given. After that, a new sub discussion was started. Where does this end? Or does it only after your minority view is accepted? As I stated some time ago, the impression I'm getting is that there is an agenda here. Sirvice626 (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sirvice626, as I said before I am not averse to the extra words that Measles would like to add. I believe his sentence above does address your initial concern. As well, it also helps to explain why the term NRM is interesting and notable, which is required in the lede. I agree with John Carter on the structure and suggest something like:
This rids the wording of the negatives and leads readers right into the next paragraph.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  23:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
S626, I'm sorry, but you really need to consult the guidelines on consensus building, you do seem to have the issue distorted. The original discussion diverged, as discussions often do, I am stating clearly above where I find the problem, and have outlined explicitly what I disagree with in the article wording, this is normal procedure. It is also in compliance with the recommendations of the WP:3O. Measles (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Measles, I'm quite clear that I did not distort the issue as it was my issue to begin with. If you felt a further explanation of NRM history was in order, that was another discussion for you to have. As for consensus building, that is not my objective. I'm simply interested in clarifying a confusing term and article so that the laymen, such as myself, understands what's being talked about. That being said, I've read the guideline and our interpretation of it seems to be different as well. How many different ways to make a majority opinion are there? Finally, and I hope this settles the matter, I am satisfied with PE's rewrite: "In recent years scholars studying new religions have almost unanimously adopted the term as a neutral alternative to the word 'cult'. They continue to try to reach agreement on definitions and boundaries." Is the case now closed? Sirvice626 (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that I wish to labor the point S626, but can I ask you to please consider the following: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion, polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes. Both during polls and discussions, opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale; convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. An argumentative approach rarely convinces others." Measles (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The latest version is acceptable, it looks good to me. In case there are any other objections, or alternate suggestions for wording, I will leave the RFC in place, either until it expires, or until someone else sees fit to remove it. Measles (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Measles, I'll happily belabor the point. The evidence and the common sense in favor of recognizing NRM as cult was overwhelming. The argument stood on its own and needed very little help from me other than some tenactiy. I was not trying to curry favor. If I were trying to sell you a home, I would have sung your praises in song. The change has been made. Sirvice626 (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Response to RFC. I suggest that everyone here should take a quick look at WP:NOT. The encyclopedia is not a dictionary. Currently there is a lot of definitional material up front. Could it be dealt with more succinctly, so that readers can more easily move on to the current state of knowledge about NRMs? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Phrasing in lead

Currently, the first paragraph says an NRM is a movement that is not a part of an established denomination, church, or religious body. This is I believe inaccurate. I've seen both Opus Dei and the Catholic Charismatic Renewal listed as NRMs, and I believe both fall clearly within the bounds of the Roman Catholic Church, which definitely is an established denomination, church, or religious body. Maybe the phrasing could be adjusted to say that NRMs are movements which either do not fall within the mainstream of established denomations, ..., seek to restore ideas that are present within the denomination that the NRM's adherents consider neglected, or seek to add ideas which have achieved greater attention outside the denomination. I'm going to try to see what some of the sources use as definitions, but we should want to make sure we don't use a definition which seemingly rules out some of the groups described as NRMs. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say that Opus Dei and the CCR are not new religious movements in the sense described in this article, and would favor a distinction being made between NRMs and new movements within established religious organizations. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I concur with TB and for those interested I have found the following information useful in NRM and/or cult recognition: www.geocities.com/eckcult/cultexpose/crucible.html Sirvice626 (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

On a mundane "technical" note, at first glance when a reader sees, "New religious movement (NRM) is a religion of recent origin . . .", it sounds as if we're saying that NRM itself is a religion (among other religions). Wouldn't it be better to say...

(? or somthing like that)  —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  00:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I general, in Wikipedia, the article is about the thing the word describes, rather than the word itself. Admittedly this can get tricky sometimes when there are several related meanings. I think I have solved the problem you spotted by the addition of a one-letter word. It now reads "A new religious movement (NRM) is a religion of recent origin ." Yaris678 (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me, Yaris678, but that didn't get rid of the confusion. I'm putting it back the way it was, which was much clearer on the fact that NRM is not a religion itself, but instead it's a term used to refer to new religions.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  12:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
What was unclear about my wording? "A new religious movement is a religion of..." It's pretty clear by the use of the word "a" that we are not talking about one specific thing called simply "New religious movement". To use an analogy with another article, in the article entitled Vegetable is says "A vegetable is an edible plant or part of a plant." The use of the indefinite article makes it clear that we are not talking about a specific plant. Yaris678 (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't you see, Yaris? A vegetable actually is an edible plant... however a new religious movement is not a religion itself. So in this case the article doesn't clarify. The only thing that clarifies is stating exactly what the phrase "new religious movement" actually is.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  17:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
How is a new religious movement not a religion? Yaris678 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Look up per se in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
NRM is not a religion per se. There is no NRM deity; there are no NRM worshipers, etc. NRM is merely a term/phrase that describes a type of religion. To say, "A new religious movement is a religion . . ." is not "incorrect", however it may be just a bit confusing for general readers. Readers may take it to mean that NRM is a religion just like Islam is a religion and Buddhism is a religion. Saying right up front that NRM is a term or a phrase that denotes or describes a certain kind or type of religion lends clarity to the lede.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  08:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much the same point you made last time, and to continue the vegetable analogy, you could say that there is not a specific plant called a vegetable with a vegetable root system and a vegetable fragrance. You could say that vegetable is just a term used to describe a certain type of plant... but that is not how things generally work in Wikipedia.
Perhaps it would be best if we use the word "any", rather than "a". "A new religious movement (NRM) is any religion of recent origin..."
I also think it would be clearer if we establish the context. i.e. something like "In religious studies, a new religious movement (NRM) is any religion of recent origin..."
Yaris678 (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the "any" helps the most.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  03:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, "A new religious movement (NRM) is a religious organisation of recent origin" would be a better idea. Measles (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like that version. Although there will be a new organisation, there will also be new rituals, doctrine etc. i.e. a new religion. I think the area where it might need clarification is over the extent to which it is separate from previous religions. For example there are NRMs that are part of christianity, but are nonetheless new religions in the same way as methodism is a different religion from anglicanism. Yaris678 (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have just changed the first two sentences to address the problems I identified above. Yaris678 (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, organisation is the key word here, not religion, I think that's a point you are missing. An organisation can "be religious", without it being a "religion", that's why they use the term "new religious movement" rather than "new religion". A good case in point, and there are many, would be the movement centered around Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in the 70s/80s, this was very definitely a religious organisation, not a religion. Measles (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
actually, no, on second thoughts, I'm wrong in swapping 'organisation' with 'movement', which is what I appear to have done here, the term 'religious organisation' is used in a different sense to what I intended it to mean here. Measles (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You are right - religious movement is the right term to use. I am happy with the words as they currently stand. Yaris678 (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with both of you. It's much better now. Best of everything to you and yours!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  10:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Who?

Who invented this "term"? Citation needed from term coiner(s). ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 09:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just reread the lede after several days of doing something else, and it is still confusing. According to the reference source, no actual "inventor" of the term is known, however it was Eileen Barker who popularized the term back in the '70's. An important note here is that the source does not say she popularized the term "new religions". The source does say that Barker popularized the term "new religious movement". So I shall make the appropriate change.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  07:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"In religious studies"

I'm not sure I understand the rationale for including this deceptive phrase. In any context NRM refers to the same groups more or less. The fact that "religious movement" happens to redirect to religion does not change this fact, nor does it create any confusion about whether or not NRMs are also "religions". How exactly how does this confusion occur? Depending on the group being discussed an NRM could be considered a religion and at times NRMs aren't even "new", but it is not up to us to speculate about how the three words in the phrase are concieved by people who read them. It is up to us to use reliable sources and to stick to what they say. Unless you have sources that confine this phrase to religious studies in a meaningful way it is deceptive to make that statement. By the way why not "sociology" instead of religious studies? At least in the US religious studies refers to a, be it vaguely defined, discipline in it's own right, which encompasses several methodological perspectives but is not simply synonymous with the study of religion across the academy. This makes it's use even more confusing.PelleSmith (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm here, PelleSmith, let me take a few mins to put it together for you. It has much to do with a previous discussion with another editor. Now that you are the second editor to question the need for context, I find myself in the awkward position that, well, maybe I am being a bit anal about it. Yes, i admit it, I could be wrong about all of this. Let me make my case, and then you be the judge. I'll have it prepared in a few minutes for you.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  01:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
PelleSmith, the fun began with this edit, which eventually led to this, my edit. I felt that to begin with the sentence, "A new religious movement is a religion . . .", that it didn't matter what came after that, some readers might immediately see an NRM as a religion in and of itself. That is, they might equate NRM with, say, Christianity as a religion, or with Buddhism as a religion, and so forth. They might see NRM as having its own deities and worshipers, its own "church". So I thought that if people didn't like the word "term", then I would call it a "phrase".
Well, editor Yaris678 put things back the way they were with this edit. Then Yaris and I, and I think editor Measles, also, discussed the challenge(?), which eventually resulted in including a "context": see this edit. My recent change of this was simply to put the base subject of the lede sentence right at the beginning so that the sentence would be strengthened. You know the rest... you took out the context and left, "A new religious movement (NRM) is a religious movement . . .". If there was confusion before by leaving "term" or "phrase" or some context out, then there is really no difference with this statement. Someone still might read that and immediately, before they read anything else, get it into their mind that NRM is a religion per se, that is, a religious movement in and of itself complete with deit(ies), followers, priests, and so forth. Once that image gets into someone's mind, it might be difficult for them to get it back out again. So instead of putting readers through all that mental acrobatics, just simplify it for them... clarify it for them by using some context.
I did change the lede sentence to sound more academic, but yes, one of the new links, "scholar" still clicks back to religious studies. Yes, I've tagged that page with a "More footnotes" maintenance tag. As sparse as those inline citations are, there are also some good further reading and external links at the bottom. And you probably noted in that article that the term, "Religious studies draws upon multiple disciplines and their methodologies including anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and history of religion." So you see that it does encompass sociology as well as the many studies in related disciplines.
So frankly, now that the need for context has been at least twice challenged, maybe I'm being too overprotective of the general reader? If I have to err, then I would rather err in that direction, though. I could be wrong.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the context again and de-linked "religious movement" instead linking "religious movement". I didn't realize it was linked at all when I posted above. A religious movement is not synonymous with a religion, so the redirect is a bit confusing in and of itself I guess. In terms of groups typologies a religious movement may be an established religion, a sect or an NRM. See for instance this list. The discussion about "religious studies" is not necessary, so my apologies for bringing it up (if you want me to explain what I meant further please ask me on my talk page). The point is that we don't need to make reference to an academic field, or a group of scholars, and doing so is odd. It implies that NRM might have another meaning altogether in another context which it does not.PelleSmith (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well done, then. As I read it, it seems much more clear to say, "A new religious movement is a religious movement . . ." rather than "A new religious movement is a religion . . ." So sorry, I guess I was being a bit anal about it the second time. Thank you for challenging it!
I agree that the "rm" redirect to "religion" is confusing, so I've redirected to this article. It may not be completely appropriate, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  14:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I changed the redirect of "religious movement" to Sociological classifications of religious movements. I think that's as close as we're going to get.PelleSmith (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This exchange is governed by MOS:BEGIN where we can find "if the subject is a term of art, provide the context as early as possible" with the example: instead of: "A trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party." write:"In cryptography, a trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party."Hyper3 (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I am amenable to discussion if anyone wants to make a talk page comment on my editing I will of course respond; in the mean time I will "be bold!" Hyper3 (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
We need to be clear about the fact that MOS:BEGIN is part of a guideline and not a policy. The idea that "NRM" is the type of technical term which would benefit from a provided context is rather dubious and would need backing here. A majority of the concepts we write articles on are labeled with the technical terminology used to describe them. Would you argue that "atom" isn't the technical term in physics or that sautéing isn't the technical term in the culinary arts? The example provided in the guideline MOS:BEGIN is of a term which requires a context because it would mean something entirely different within other more common social contexts. As such it is very much so an exception to the rule here. You will have to convince us that the context is needed for clarity, which it is not. Also please take note of the fact that this isn't even the most relevant academic context. Sociology of religion is.PelleSmith (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Firstly - the issue of the relationship between religious studies and sociology of religion: I'm willing to go with sociology as this is Barker's field. Secondly - the article clearly goes on to source Barker as the one who coined the term; she used it in a specific context, and as such this is the best way to handle it. Hence MOS:BEGIN applies. If you are saying that there are special reasons to ignore this guideline, then please quote either policy or reliable source. Hyper3 (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:MOS is a guideline and not a policy.
  • The guideline example you are using is itself about very special circumstances which do not apply here. I've asked for an explanation of why they should apply and there has been none. in 99.9% of cases using technical terminology no such context is provided in this way since it would actually be more confusing than elucidating. Sure the context reveals itself rather obviously within entry text that follows, but once again we don't say, "In physics, an atom is a ... ".
  • Please do not use WP:BOLD as an excuse to edit war against several other editors. Lets continue discussion here.PelleSmith (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thirdly - you can't seriously be saying " new religious movement (NRM), is a religious movement of recent origin" is the best definition so far: as a sentence all it does is change "new" to "recent." This is a tautology, not a definition. Hyper3 (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
My issue is specifically with "in religious studies" or similar contexts. I agree with your assessment of the supposed definition but disagree entirely about the context.PelleSmith (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
How does this version seem?PelleSmith (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Below, before your above...
I'm always WP:BOLD bold until someone addresses me on the talk page! Then I'm WP:CIVIL.
You say "the guideline example you are using is itself about very special circumstances which do not apply here." Easy to say, but hard to prove, which you'll need to do. Where a guideline exists, we should use it. Its not special, its very ordinary, and providing a context for a word used primarily within a discipline is the best way forward. We all know the word used is "cult" by those who are not attempting to work within a given context. Hence the existence of the term.
You say " I've asked for an explanation of why they should apply and there has been none." I said "the article clearly goes on to source Barker as the one who coined the term; she used it in a specific context, and as such this is the best way to handle it. Hence MOS:BEGIN applies." and then " If you are saying that there are special reasons to ignore this guideline, then please quote either policy or reliable source." to which you haven't replied. Hyper3 (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The guideline suggests making the context clear as early as possible--explicitly doing so is only necessary if it isn't clear already. What is unclear about NRM or about the expert sources of knowledge about NRMs? Nothing. Those who study religion clearly use the term as a technical term, but outside of that context it means the same thing. Read the entry on technical terminology, which is what "term of art" is linked to. Its states: "Technical terminology is the specialized vocabulary of a field, the nomenclature. These terms have specific definitions within the field, which is not necessarily the same as their meaning in common use." If the second part applies then making the context clear explicitly would be necessary, but only then. That is why, once again, we don't write that "In the culinary arts, sautéing is ...". Yes it is the technical term in the culinary arts, but this technical meaning doesn't change outside the culinary arts. The context is implied.PelleSmith (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand if we did write "In the culinary arts, sautéing is ..." we might confuse readers into thinking that in another context the meaning changes. The same applies here.PelleSmith (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Pelle - we have made progress out of tautology into something better. This is good. However, when a term needs defining in its first few sentences through a reference to a particular person working in a particular field, then we must be in the territory of technical use. This shouldn't be confused with the fact that the is term is used badly, or in different circumstances, or without clarity. All terms that cause a reaction are surrounded by debate, and anything that comes near "cult" is bound to have disputed uses. Should this not encourage us to be clear where the usage came from? Hyper3 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, p4 says "By the time of the Jonestown tragedy in 1978, NRMs was a recognized specialization within the sociology of religion." Hyper3 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It goes on to say that by the 90s it was embraced by religious studies also. Hyper3 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't need reference to Barker in the lead. In fact we should probably remove mention of her there. I don't have a problem with stating that the term originated from the classification of religious groups in the sociology of religion. The Barker sentence, and the one about this term replacing "cult" could be rewritten to make this clear without mentioning one sociologist, and without implying that it is only a technical term in the study of religion.PelleSmith (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
What you are saying is that the words "new", "religious" and "movement" when put together create a self-evident and easily understand phrase which needs no special context. Indeed, Barker does not need mentioning, because we can understand it without her. So the term cult, and its relationship to the term NRM. I understand what you are trying to say, its just that the literature disagrees with you. The Oxford Handbook on Religious Movements, goes straight to Barker, and I expect many others do to. It then goes to the context of "sociology of religion" and "religious studies." This is because the phrase emerged in the context of a particular debate, and is used in a particular way. We don't know how long ago counts as "new", what a "religion" is, or indeed what a "movement" is because definition needs to be found within the literature of NRMs for any candidate to be considered a new religious movement in this particular sense. Is the charismatic movement within the Anglican church an NRM? is an independent charismatic movement with Brethren roots an NRM? How much theological change needs to be present to be an NRM? All of these questions would be answered with reference to the literature, and not well-answered by presuming that the answer to these questions is self-evident. Not only is the literature against you, but you have no method for determining the nature of an NRM without it. This is because the words presume a certain theological or sociological method (or a debate about such method) whereas your self-evidential approach can tell us nothing about method. Hyper3 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I want to suggest that you are going back to the problem that NRM as a classification was trying to deal with. Everyone thinks they know what a "cult" is. This is self-evident. Yet a new way of talking about it became necessary so that it could be dealt with more sociologically. In other words, it was important to make it a matter of study rather than a matter of assumption. Hence the literature. You want to suggest that a new religious movement is as obvious as a "cult" in common parlance. i don't think you are right... Hyper3 (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding Barker you write: I understand what you are trying to say, its just that the literature disagrees with you. The Oxford Handbook on Religious Movements, goes straight to Barker, and I expect many others do to. The Oxford Handbook does not represent all of "the literature" and how exactly does it go straight to Barker? Barker is, among others, a pioneer in the study of NRMs and she may well have helped to popularize the term but as far as I know she didn't coin it nor does "the literature" harp on her significance to the extent that mentioning her specifically in an encyclopedia article's lead is necessary. Have a look at The Encyclopedia of Religion and Society or even more basic reference works like Britannica Online. J. Gordon Melton doesn't mention Barker's significance in the origin of the term in David Bromley's Teaching New Religious Movements, nor Ronald Enroth in A Guide to New Religious Movements, etc. What examples from "the literature" back your claim here?PelleSmith (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding your discussion about definitions, any phenomena which is studied by an academic discipline is also defined by it. This goes for atom just as much as as new religious movement and yes we look to physics for scientific answers to questions regarding the atom just as much as we do to the study of religion for answers about NRMs. You have no way of understanding what an atom is without physics -- it's properties are not "self-evident" either. I fail to understand what you are trying to argue here. I also fail to understand how the literature is against me. My main argument is that we accept what the literature says about NRMs without strange disclaimers about what disciplines the literature has been generated in. Clearly the expert discourses which define the parameters of this topic are from the study of religions and not, lets say, physics. That's self-evident.PelleSmith (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding your last point you've turned my argument on its head. I am not suggesting that most people automatically understand what an NRM is simply by reading the words comprising the term. How many people know what a neutrino is before consulting a dictionary or an encyclopedia? Probably less than those who know what a new religious movement is. But the point is that these people have no referent for that term at all, and certainly not another different referent (such is the case with NRM). The point of establishing context is to clarify confusion when, in cases like the example used in the guideline, the term and/or its context is not clear. Once again, whether or not people know what this term means prior to reading the entry the context is completely self-evident in the entry, just like the academic context for atom or neutrino is. There is no need to state it outright. In fact doing so is itself confusing because it suggests that the term may have another meaning elsewhere.PelleSmith (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
To take the main point you are making, upon which you appear to base your pov: "doing so is itself confusing because it suggests that the term may have another meaning elsewhere". Clearly there is a case for NRM having a technical meaning different to what most people would understand by it. As PA says below, where is the border-line? This is discussed in the literature: ie what is the difference between "The Family International," which arose in the Jesus Movement, the Charismatic Movement, Calvary Chapel, Pentecostalism and the Holiness Movement. There will be a discussion around all of these types of examples, where some are considered NRM and others are not. Its only the context that will give us an answer. In other words, autonomous rationality cannot deliver an answer because this term is used in a particular way, for a particular type of discussion. When used in a less precise way it means something different. Hyper3 (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please stop referring to "the literature". Make specific references. It is within "the context" you keep on referring to that differences usually occur regarding what groups to consider for inclusion. It is not between "the context" and popular parlance. You state: Clearly there is a case for NRM having a technical meaning different to what most people understand by it. Really? What do "most people understand by it"? Not much of anything. Again, recall my analogy to neutrino here, because most of the public doesn't have a referent for NRM until it is explained to them. Regarding your general point recall also my analogy to atom. We can apply your claim there as well -- "clearly there is a case for atom having a technical meaning different to what most people understand by it." Yes clearly this is partly true when there is some sort of non-expert conception of a subject. There are dummed down lay conceptions and there are more complex expert conceptions which in their detail are not 100% agreed upon within the expert community. However, we use the expert literature as best we can to piece together a cohesive subject matter. If we didn't we wouldn't be writing an encyclopedia. All this reletavist talk about "contexts" is itself un-encyclopedic unless it is a vital component of the what we know about the subject in the first place. I'd love to see the sources that make a case for that here. The contextual usage of "cult", of course is a counter example which we could bring in reams of sources about. But regarding "NRM" I don't see sources, just this talk about "the literature". What literature?PelleSmith (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I use the term "in the literature" advisedly, because I am referring to the whole debate, its different methodologies and its tradition of inquiry ( and if you want to follow my reasoning academically you'd need to go to the writings of Alasdair MacIntyre, which you may be familiar with). I am saying that the term means nothing really outside the field of sociology of religion or religious studies, and that we need to make that clear. It is a technical term. Hence my desire to put it in the lead; above you seem to agree with me? Its because sautee means the same in cooking and in common parlance that we don't need to refer to the discipline; its because everyone knows that neutrino is a term used in physics that we don't need to worry about people not understanding it: "new religious movement" seems to be saying something straightforward, and isn't well understood as being a technical term, therefore we must flag the appropriate context in the definition. MOS:BEGIN. If this doesn't apply here, I don't know what the guideline is for. Hyper3 (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This is going nowhere, and unfortunately its going nowhere slowly. I'm done with this and I'm removing my initial response because it is pointless. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, you have directed me to this:
Are you saying that this rather technical definition is the same definition that one would encounter in a non-specialised environment? That this is what the layman understands by NRM? If we use the definition of definition found here, then it may be possible to concede that there are two definiens the technical and specific and that which, in general, a non-specialist might understand it to be. So in my line of work, when people in the UK don't recognise the British New Church Movement even if 10% of the church going population are involved, they might ask "is it a cult?" For them not being familiar with it is enough to wonder. They also ask "is it American" which in their mind is the same, unfortunately! We could also add a definition that makes it clear that being unfamiliar with a religious movement leads to inquiry about the nature of it; yet that inquiry will in the end require the expertise of the more focussed definition, and the mode of inquiry connected with that definition. Hyper3 (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
See my answer just above. This discussion about lay vs. expert understandings is off the mark if you are trying respond to points I've been making. The term NRM has been slow to catch on in mass culture. Most people refer to the same groups that scholars call NRMs as "cults", because that is what they know from years of media sensationalism. Of course these people are not reactionary church-sect typology loyalists who refuse to adopt NRM. They are people who have fallen victim to the very butchering of the sociological term cult which caused scholars to move away from it in the first place. However significant segments of the US population also have faulty conceptions of "fundamentalism" or "secularism". When we write entries about Christian fundamentalism we don't use the caricature provided to us by atheists and when we write about secularism we don't use the caricature provided to us by Christian conservatives, we try to use the most neutral scholarship as best we can. And the other thing we don't do is say "In scholarship secularism is ...".PelleSmith (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Focusing the lede

Context is unnecessary right off the bat. Let's remember, though, what brought us to this point. A reader was unclear on this term's relationship with the term "cult". So adios Barker if you must, however a clear concise relationship with the term "cult" is a necessary component of this article's lede.

Next, let me suggest that "faith community" be substituted with faith-based community. And the lede-sentence wording still needs work. If I and a group of fellow students start getting together each week at the library to discuss philosophy, do we then constitute an NRM?
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  05:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  • PS. One other thing we must keep in mind... One of the questions that the lede has to answer is, "Why is the subject of this article notable?" That might be a reason for keeping the Barker note and the accompanying inline citation.
I don't think notability is a problem. If we need to make the connection to cult clearer we can.PelleSmith (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead again

Pelle, I want the lead to read "In religious studies and the sociology of religion, A new religious movement (NRM)..."

  • you agree that NRM means nothing to people outside the academic context in which it is studied
  • you agree that the term was developed for a technical reason, to do with a previous term being inadequate
  • there is a guideline for this sort of thing: MOS:BEGIN.
  • it makes it clear that when something is a technical term, the guideline should be followed

What is the problem? Hyper3 (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a compromise that is still within the guideline to "provide the context as early as possible". Hyper3 (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus to insert this "context" explicitly into the beginning of the lead period. It is not a matter of compromise.
  • I do not agree that NRM means "nothing" outside the academic context. It has been slow to catch on in the media and mass culture more generally where "cult" is still often bandied about to label most groups scholars refer to as NRMs. The point is that there is no alternate meaning of NRM in the mass cultural context, hence there is no reason to differentiate contexts as if the term is only meaningful to scholars. Also, in recent years usage of this term has indeed increased in these popular contexts.
  • I do not agree that the fact that this term is also the most accepted technical term is in any way meaningful to this discussion. A vast majority of the terms we use as entry titles here are also "technical terms" within the relevant fields and they do not merit this kind of language unless not establishing context may lead to confusion or a lack of clarity. As I've stated already the opposite is true. Your language confuses the reader into thinking the term only has a technical usage. "I'll leave this technical mumbo jumbo to the scholars, I'll just keep using 'cult' for myself." No thanks.
  • The part of MOS:BEGIN which suggests how to treat technical terms does not clearly apply here. I've tried explaining why, but since that doesn't work let's stick with the fact that you are alone in thinking so.
  • See above. It does not make this clear in the least. Please see other "technical terms" like "star", "moral panic", or, "metaphor" (which is a good one because contextual differentiation is required yet not dealt with in the manner you suggest).
The problem, to put it mildly, seems to be WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and editing against consensus.PelleSmith (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Only a few days of discussion and already coming out with stuff that could be construed as failing to be WP:AGF? Because I'm trying to stick with it, I will assume you are having a bad day, and not starting with the disruptive editing yourself. I disagree with your points above and below, and don't think you are being neutral about it. You don't have to agree with me, but you do have to consider what I'm saying. And I you, which I promise to do. Hyper3 (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I apologize if I'm coming off in an abrasive way, however you have to realize that you are repeating your arguments over and over despite others not agreeing with you. I have considered what you are saying several times. I've also grown rather frustrated with the fact that you have made several claims about what the scholarly literature says (both in general and in your most recent edit rather specifically) that appear not to hold water. When I bring these to your attention you have divert the conservation, reverted to arguing your point via your own reasoning and interpretation of of a guideline instead of through sourcing and/or established Wikipedia convention and now apparently you'd rather point out that I'm not sticking to WP:AGF than to address the claims made on a specific page of a specific book. You can't expect me to take your disagreement with my comments below unless you are prepared to show me how the page you cited, or the book for that matter, actually verifies the statement you used it to source. And for the record I'm not assuming bad faith at all, I'm assuming that you are being stubborn for whatever reason. On the other hand suggesting that I am not being neutral is taking a step in that direction. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we are allowed to say things like is "that's not neutral" and "That"s not reliably sourced" without it being a problem. And which others are we talking about? There is only you that is responding. I think there should be a clear context mentioned at some point in the lead that this has emerged from particular disciplines. At what point would you be prepared to admit this rather inconspicuous fact? Please don't give in too easily or I'll have to get on with some real work. Hyper3 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Paine responded to you on his talk page (as well as coming to agreement with me earlier on this talk page), and others reverted your edits when you were edit warring for the insertion of this context. Feel free to start an RFC if you want further input.PelleSmith (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
For instance these edits, one of which explicitly disagreed with adding the phrase "in religious studies" and the other which generally disagreed with the notion that your edits make the entry seem like it is about a term as opposed to a subject matter. See [22] and [23]. The second issue is in fact the larger problem here. This entry should, like the Oxford Handbook you are so fond of citing, be about a subject matter not a term.PelleSmith (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any point in the lead you will allow the mention of the context? If it appears in the body, it should be summarised in the lead... Hyper3 (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The context is implied in the lead even without the fact that "scholars" are mentioned several times. I have wikilinked the first mention to Sociology of religion.PelleSmith (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hyper3, please never assume you are not being read just because you don't get enough response. Some editors would rather just read to see how the discussion's going, rather than jump in every other word and confound the issue(s). You and PelleSmith have been debating admirably. Neither of you need anything more from me, which would just be redundant agreement with PelleSmith.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  18:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning your involvement. Hyper3 (talk)


Oxford Handbook

The Oxford Handbook was used as a source for the following statement:

The reference claimed that p. 4 of the Handbook was applicable here. I see nothing there to back this up. The Handbook attributes the creation of this field of study to the fact that scholars in a variety of fields started recognizing something new about these movements, suggesting a new category had to be created (though I can quote several sources that suggest even more clearly that it was meant to replace "cult"). The Handbook also goes on to say that the study of NRMs was established before the cult controversies started heating up. In any event the reference does not back up the statement in the least.PelleSmith (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is also noteworthy here that the Oxford Handbook subsumes the study of these groups, whether by researchers calling them "cults" or those calling them "NRMs" under the notion of the academic study of NRMs. This is what we should be doing here. Emphatically calling them NRMs, like the experts do and not acting as if the term is simply technical jargon.PelleSmith (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You express a particular pov, which I understand, and may even agree with; but wikipedia is not the place to push a pov. So the fact that you wish it to be a term that is recognised and understood by all, even though it isn't, may be making it hard for you to stick to the facts. And why you would want to argue with the fact of NRMs emerged from debates within the sociology of religion and later being taken up by religious studies, I can't undertand. The quote below describes the events in that process:
Here is the section:


What is the problem here? Are you saying that "The term emerged out of a scholarly debate within the sociology of religion and was later taken up into religious studies" is innacurate? Hyper3 (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that in the text you quoted, which I read before making my comment, there is absolutely no mention of the term emerging out of a scholarly debate. What part of what you quote or highlight specifically do you think makes your assertion clear? The history being quoted above is not about the course of a "term" but the study of a subject matter -- a subject matter which encompasses varying terminologies over the course of its development including "NRM" and "cult" but also to a lesser extent terms like "alternative religions", "emergent religions", and "novel religions". The above history is not about a term being born out of academic debate. It certainly makes reference to the role played by the "cult controversy" within the study of NRMs but in no place does it claim that the term was born out of academic debate.PelleSmith (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The quote is backing up the transition, not the scholarly debate aspect, which we can find in any number of places. Do you disagree that it emerged from scholarly debate? Hyper3 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The "transition" the quote speaks of is once again not about a term, it is about embracing a subject matter. The problem with your sentence is that it is about a term as opposed to a subject matter. Yes, debates shaped the emergence of the subject matter within the academic study of religion. Nothing remarkable about that whatsoever.PelleSmith (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Term and subject area..

There are places where its the use of the term that is highlighted, for example Paul J. Olson, The Public Perception of “Cults” and “New Religious Movements” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion; Mar2006, Vol. 45 Issue 1, 97-106:

Why object to the idea of the term itself being the focus? Obviously the entry is about an idea, and I know that wikipedia is not a dictionary, but the use of alternative terms to "cult" to achieve a different reception is partly the subject matter in hand. Hyper3 (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is "part of" the subject matter, but it is a footnote. The subject matter itself is, as Olson states, "the groups that are ...". Of course some of these labels are the actual focus of Olson's study. There are other studies about this as well. I would suggest that those studies, all focusing on the negative connotations of "cult" (and not the marginal popular usage of NRM) belong predominantly in the cult entry, which is much more so about a term than a subject matter. Why is that? Because the neutral and mainstream treatment of the subject matter being labeled as ... is at this entry and because a body of literature exists surrounding the cultural politics of "cult" as a term.PelleSmith (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You say "predominantly" the issue belongs in the "cult" entry, so that is not the entire prohibition that you were giving earlier. I don't understand how "Cult" can have a literature without alternatives like NRM having a significant literature bound up with it. Indeed Olson demonstrates that it exists, and that it is perfectly proper to refer to NRM as an "alternative term".
So if I add this footnote to "The term emerged out of a scholarly debate within the sociology of religion and was later taken up into religious studies" on what basis will you object next? Remember that the issue here is sticking to wikipedia guidelines of "reliable source" not "truth", and though you have a strong opinion, in the end you must produce a reliable source that agrees with you, not merely disagree with me. I think I have found enough material to show that misuse of the term "cult" required a new term to be developed, and that this is a significant part of the history of NRMs; of course there is a great deal more to be said, but that this sentence should be more than a footnote, but at least a part of the history.
What I really don't understand, is that much of what you argue against is still part of the article. If you know so much about all this, why is this the case! The reason I got involved was that the article was so patchy and the lead so meaningless that I thought I could contribute something. And then I discover that there is somebody who is involved with an obvious scholarly background. (And I'll admit this is outside my remit which is ecclesiology.) This makes no sense... Sigh. Hyper3 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to say I agree with Hyper3 here, I don't see the problem with what has been proposed above and the current resistance to inclusion of this material seems unnecessary. If there is no likelihood of hammering out a compromise here can I suggest moving to RFC for further input? Measles (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
@Measels - I think you are buying what Hyper is claiming about my position as opposed to what I have been saying myself. Please see below.PelleSmith (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
@Hyper3 - There is no prohibition against adding pertinant information about the history of this term as it relates to the subject matter to the entry. I am not resistant to including this material. I am resistant to making the entry into one primarily about a term, or to suggesting that this is what the entry is about in the lead. I hope this is more than clear. Regarding the available literature I'm afraid it is simply a fact that there are significant studies about "cult" as a a label, and not about NRM, and Olson's study does not prove otherwise. Look at the literature review he does and look at what his own study is about. There is nothing interesting to research in the usage of NRM, because it has not, for instance, been distorted by the media and it has not been used as a discursive "weapon" by anti-cultists. Nor has it had any significant implications to public policy or legal proceedings. "Cult" has. What we have about NRM as a term is usually off the cuff reflection in works that do not focus on the its use as a term. On the other hand, Olson is following others like Richardson who have already done significant work on the "cult" label. I find it ironic that you bring up WP:TRUTH in nearly the same breath that you wish to include a sentence which you incorrectly sourced and have yet to properly source while asking me about its truth value. The burden of verifiability is on the person wanting to include information. The lead already makes reference to the switch from "cult" to "NRM". We need to stop harping on the terminology and write more about the subject matter. You wrote -- I think I have found enough material to show that misuse of the term "cult" required a new term to be developed, and that this is a significant part of the history of NRMs ... You're exemplifying the problem here once again. It is not a significant part of the history of NRMs ... it is a significant part of the history of discourses about NRMs. Once again the entry should be about NRMs primarily and only secondarily about these discourses.PelleSmith (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not want to make the article "primarily" about the term. I believe (with Alasdair MacIntyre) that the rationality of an act or idea is directly related to its context: so observations about the mode of inquiry, and the inquiry itself (what you call the discourse) must be included to understand the subject, and they are not rationally separate. In other words, the subject matter will not be properly understood without the discourse, because the way the argument has proceeded is as important as the current place of its development. I don't think this is very extreme or extraordinary - and I think that a wikpedia entry should be about both, with due weight given to the content undoubtedly.
I have asked you several times at what point in the article will you admit information about the discourse. As a further attempt at compromise I am suggesting a terminology section. I think this gives a chance to mention the other possible terms like cult and alternatives like "emergent religions." Hyper3 (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Measles revert

Measles: I have read the discussion you pointed to, and you seem to have reverted some things that I understand, and others that I don't. Wouldn't it have been better to restore the one sentence that I think you are most passionate about? I think this is "there is still debate..." Hyper3 (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The sentence about "new religions", for instance also dissapeared in this revert.PelleSmith (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought I did, my apologies if I removed something accidently, having said that Hyper3, I don't appreciate your tone, the sentence is clearly representative of the source cited; before the change, it wasn't, what exactly is the issue here? Measles (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised you can hear my tone. Rest assured that my tone (at least the one I can hear in my head) is helpful, interested, enjoying the debate, polite, respectful... as I'm choosing to believe yours is too. Hyper3 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
quite honestly, your remark about my passions was sarcastic, therefore unnecessary, this is about reflecting cited sources accurately, and I think you'll find that's what initially drew me to this lead tweaking issue. Measles (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I meant nothing by it, except to encourage you to edit according to your own hopes and watch out for reversions that go beyond what you really want to change. This medium has a very low emotional bandwidth - its hard to tell anything about tone (although I've edited with people who make their tone very clear through their vocabulary!) I enjoy both the debate and the new things I learn whilst doing this. If my argument for a position is tight, its because I find that editors sometimes take control of pages and won't let new people in, sometimes reverting other contributions for weeks on end. It can take tenacious and clear argument just to get a foothold! Please consider yourself an honoured colleague as far as I am concerned, not an object of sarcasm. We should work together. I particularly appreciate the latest quote that you have found. Hyper3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
no worries, some subject areas generate a lot of discussion based on personal opinion, without any real discussion of sources; because some editors are more interested in defending their own positions than they are in actually dealing objectively with verifiable sources. Yes, the emotional bandwidth issue often makes it difficult to gauge true intent. Measles (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

opinion and suggestion for new definition

I believe a relevant issue here with our user base on wikipedia is the feeling that we, free-source contributors, are limited by other dictionaries and other encyclopedias when defining terms. Let us create a new definition for the word "cult." Such a new definition does need not be so far different from the common definition but could be more specific, logical, and so true to its etymology.

cult: 1617, "worship," also "a particular form of worship," from Fr. culte, from L. cultus "care, cultivation, worship," originally "tended, cultivated," pp. of colere "to till" (see colony). Rare after 17c.; revived mid-19c. with reference to ancient or primitive rituals. Meaning "devotion to a person or thing" is from 1829.

Perhaps the word 'cult' should be defined as 'the care or cultivation of.' As a past particable of Latin "colere," which means "to cultivate," "cultus" meant "did cultivate." Being that cult is from cultus, such a definition should be that cult means 'the care or cultivation of' in a past tense; how ever, as there is no present such tense other than the word 'care,' whose past particable is currently "cared," cult can be a unique word--both of past and present tense.

The agricultural meaning, between cult and cultus, may have been long ago lost, forgotten through ignorance and inhibition, but may be still used (though considered archaic). As many ancient forms of worship involved animal worship and other nature worships, exempli gratia sun worship and moon worship, (and may be studied with wikipedia's "animal worship" article), I do presume that such is the reason for the current connection between cult and religion.

Distinguishing between the words 'cult' and 'religion,' I would propose religion to be the same as cult, where one cult would be less established than a religion. Where a religious sect(ion) is a theo-/philosophically unique sub-religion, a religious cult is a less established theologically unique sub-religion or less established theologically unique religion. By my definition, Christianity was a cult of Judaism until it became so established and unique that it was able to be considered a religion; Mormonism was a cult of Christianity (of which section, or denomination, I am not so much aware or concerned), and is considered to still be by a majority, until it became so established and unique that it was able to be considered a religion; Anglicanism, also known as English Catholicism, is not so theologically removed, unique, from Christianity to be considered a cult, as much as it is theo-/philosophically unique and so may be considered a sect of Roman Catholicism--a sect of Christianity, the most simplified and old cult of Jesus Christ. Anglicanism, how ever, is so established that it is now considered equal to Roman Catholicism as a sect of Christianity and so much be considered, while catholic, the Church of England, not English Catholic.

Ancient cults such as Indian and Greek cults idolized an animal or God separate and perhaps above or removed from other animals or Gods that were also the subjects of such religions. Current cults of religions may also revere an other above others or even an out side influence, being a development of that master religion. Cults of cults do not usually exist due to the relative unestablished nature of that potential master cult; two separate cults of one master religion, though, are much more usual. As a religion is merely an established religious cult, a religious cult an unestablished religion, an unestablished and unique religion with no master religion, (not a sub-religion), would be considered merely a cult. The barrier between establishment and obscurity, whether kept by the need or desire for secrecy, by the hate or misunderstanding of extraneous persons, may keep a cult one. An example of such aforementioned religious cult, in modern context, is the Church of Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiZeNgAmOtX (talk • contribs) 09:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WiZ - it takes a while to get used to all the policies and guidelines on wikipedia. The reason everyone is so obsessed with definitions found in other places and don't ever really make up their own (or shouldn't) is that there is a policy that everyone needs to use a reliable source. I've added a useful set of links to your talk page to ease you in. Hyper3 (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research and Reliable sources would be helpful perhaps?
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  11:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Debate over definitions and boundaries

I don't like the phrase in the lead that makes it sound like there is an ongoing and active "debate" over the definitional boundaries of NRM. It is more accuracte to point out that definitional boundaries may differ between scholars, which is more common than one might think in the social scniences and humanities. The point is that this isn't exactly actively debated. Maybe we also shouldn't say "still" when using a reference that is nearly ten years old. It would also be nice to see some other sources on this so we can asses the notability of this debate, particularly as something "current". My understanding is that there isn't really a debate over definitions at this point even though there is no one strict definition that everyone adheres to. We have to remember that this is a new subject matter and things are bound to keep changing in the study of it for the next few decades.PelleSmith (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems sensible - is there a relevant source that says something like this? Then someone can propose some wording. Hyper3 (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I will look into it but I won't be able to get to it for a couple of days. I welcome others to do the same. I would advise looking into recent and more general texts like the Oxford Handbook to see if they mention "debate". Noe it is clear that differences exist, as I said but I just think there are better ways to describe this. Detractors of the term, which I'm not calling anyone here, like to play up the "debate" to make it seem like there is no real agreement. A tactic similar to teaching the controversy.PelleSmith (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
this was discussed earlier, the statement represents the cited source. What is the problem with this? Measles (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be further reflection - the trouble with wikipedia is that previous agreements aren't binding on future editors... If Pelle can find a source the observation should probably be inserted into the text. Hyper3 (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
not an issue, most of what has been exchanged here is personal opinion, reviewing sources is good, and that's primarily what the discussion page should be used for. Measles (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The following helps to clarify the position. Taken from the introduction to a 2006 publication: Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America: History and controversies, Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 0275987124.

Volume 2 accordingly raises most acutely the problems of definition that are involved in using the admittedly malleable categories of “new” and “alternative” religions. The description of a religious movement as new or alternative only begs further questions. Novelty can be in the eye of the beholder, or in the mind of someone claiming to be innovative. That is, religious movements are judged to be new, alternative,or anything else only in particular contexts and by certain audiences. (p. xi)

As this overview suggests, the definition of what counts as a new or alternative religion is frequently open to argument. Many groups that appear dramatically novel to external observers would claim that they are simply being faithful to ancient traditions. Joseph Smith, for example, claimed that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, was a restoration of primitive Christianity. Groups that claim to be innovative often express their messages in the form of fresh interpretations of ancient texts, as with Swami Prabhupada’s effort to present the ancient Indian classic, the Bhagavad-Gita, “as it is”; or Rael’s contention that the mentions of “Elohim” in the biblical book of Genesis actually refer to extraterrestrial beings who came to earth in space ships. Because of the subjective nature of the categories —new to whom? alternative to what?—it will always be difficult to delimit precisely which groups definitely do, and do not, “count” as new or alternative. Moreover, in popular discourse, where the category cult is frequently used but appears devoid of anything other than emotional content, and in interreligious arguments, where cult easily expands to include “virtually anyone who is not us,” attempts at substantive definitions give way entirely to polemics. Discussion of new and alternative religions in the United States thus always refers to a shifting and vigorously contested terrain where categories like “alternative religion” or “cult” and implicit comparisons like those implied by “new religious movement” are used to establish, reinforce, and defend certain kinds of individual and group identities, even as they threaten, compromise, or erode other kinds of individual or group identities.


No mapping of such terrain can hope to be definitive. Too much is in flux. (p. xiv)

Measles (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. Let's use it. Hyper3 (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Careful reading is needed here. As I stated this is a new topic of inquiry with a particularly elastic set of boundaries and scholars are not in full agreement by any means. However, please don't jump to conclusions regarding an ongoing scholarly debate about definitions and boundaries, even in what is written above. "The vigorously contested terrain" mentioned is not a reference to the academic study of NRMs so much as the discourses existing between non-academic groups (e.g. different NRMs, the ACM, etc.), and also between scholars and these groups. A majority of introductions to this subject matter follow more closely the example of J. Gordon Melton in, "Introducing and Defining the Concept of a New Religion", a chapter of Teaching New Religious Movements, who makes inroads towards definition by way of discussing the diverse terrain of this subject matter. The fact that definitions are "open for argument" does not mean that vocal argument is going on in the academy. Note again that a lot of the juxtapositions that follow this phrase above are between the "objective observer" and the believer. Anyway an important page between the two quoted above is also missing on google books. I will check my library later today. I know there are some who think I'm probably being exceedingly nitpicky here, but there is reason to cautious about describing this field of study and its subject in a way that reflects scholarly consensus as accurately as possible exactly because of the "vigorously contested terrain."PelleSmith (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
See also -- NRM in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Society (this is a web version of the published text). David Bromley begins the entry with: "The term new religious movements (NRMs, sometimes referred to as alternative religious movements, marginal religious movements, or cults) identifies an important but difficult-to-demarcate set of religious entities." He goes on to describe much of the diversity of groups and the diversity of attributes focused on by scholars, but like Melton does not play up an ongoing debate. The point is that despite diversity and ambiguity scholars are forging ahead in this field and they largely have a similar understanding of what groups fit the label.PelleSmith (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
sorry PelleSmith, but I find your cautionary note a bit patronising, and this vetting of a source, based upon an assumed authoritative position on the subject matter, is problematic, the cite is WP:VER. I mean, are you actually questioning the intellectual integrity of the books editors? A lot of what you discuss on this page relates to your personal opinions, so I don't find it convincing. Measles (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

here are more examples, grabbed from the introduction and conclusion of a book that deals directly with the so called debate:

Interestingly, the expansion of the ‘cult’ category has also found its way into the academic/social scientific study of ‘new religious movements’, with some papers and articles drawing parallels between ‘cults’ and Al-Qaeda (see e.g. Melton, 2003;2004:238–239; Introvigne, 2004; Lucas and Robbins, 2004). However, the expansion of the ‘cult’ category entails a muddying of this very category, thus adding further confusion and lack of clarity to a concept which is already contested and controverted a point which this volume argues. (p.3)

Third, this book does not accord unique privilege to the voice of the academics/social scientists in this field of study or the academic discourse and does not consider the body of academic knowledge as automatically standing above the body of knowledge which the other contenders in the debate have accumulated. For this reason, academics working in this field may find this book unsatisfactory or in disagreement with their own positions, because it seeks to show that academics/social scientists/sociologists of religion are similar to the other interest groups involved in the debate of NRMs in that they, too, have brought different sets of agendas into play. These are partly related to pressures to which the academic community itself has been subjected, such as obtaining funding, raising institutional profiles, and the need to produce publications, arising partly from the desire to build personal reputations, and partly from the particular stances which academics have adopted with regard to new religious movements, some of which are driven by personal motives. (p. 5)

The previous chapters examined and reviewed institutional responses to NRMs and the way in which they have interacted with one another. Although I have dealt with a selection of institutional responses, my objective has been to place these in the contexts in which they unfolded and to show how academic, ‘anti-cult’, and theological responses have evolved as the NRM debate progressed over time. (p.326)

from Researching new religious movements: responses and redefinitions, Elisabeth Arweck, Routledge, 2006. Measles (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

@Pelle, the article is not very advanced: we should improve it. Although, we are not allowed to operate as experts, choosing between texts, we should put in whatever we can find, in an inclusive way, trying to show how the different contributions relate to each other. We should avoid the situation where a better quality of text is defeated, yet no one is really ready to do the work of editing. In other words everything gets closed down on the talk page. Lets add some of the material we've found, and rather than reverting reliably sourced material, add other reliably sourced material to create increasing nuance.
@Measles, just to say that its important to give Pelle a hearing as there is obviously appropriate knowledge coming our way; even if Pelle isn't able to edit much we might be guided to some helpful material.
Overall - we should edit as well as debate. Hyper3 (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Another example, from the preface of Understanding new religious movements, John A. Saliba, Rowman Altamira, 2003:

It would be a mistake to assume that this book will offer, once and for all, a final, all-encompassing picture of the phenomenon of new religious movements and/or a solution to all the problems their presence has raised. The discussions conducted in diverse academic settings testify to the variety of irreconcilable opinions among those who have been studying the new religions for the past few decades. They also show that the quest for simple, unequivocal answers is unrealistic. (ix)

Measles (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Measales that is quite an unproductive accusation you have made about my use of opinions. In my response I made reference to two sources with a link directly to the text of one of them, how do those sources constitute my opinion? When have I questioned the intellectual integrity of the book's editors or vetted their argument based upon my own opinions? I'm absolutely not accusing the authors of misrepresenting the field. What I am saying is that their text supports the notion that scholars are not in complete agreement on definitional boundaries and that these labels are more hotly contested in the greater cultural context. What I am trying to clarify here is that the "terrain" mentioned above, is the entire cultural context within which these groups can be studied, and not "the academy." I am also trying illustrate the fact that despite ambiguity and cultural contestation academics are forging ahead in the study of groups they generally agree to compare within the category of NRM. Let me illustrate by putting in more of the surrounding text from your quotes and bolding different sentences:

Volume 2 accordingly raises most acutely the problems of definition that are involved in using the admittedly malleable categories of “new” and “alternative” religions. The description of a religious movement as new or alternative only begs further questions. Novelty can be in the eye of the beholder, or in the mind of someone claiming to be innovative. That is, religious movements are judged to be new, alternative, or anything else only in particular contexts and by certain audiences. They may claim, for example, to retrieve and correctly interpret or represent past beliefs and practices, which have been neglected or forgotten. But their opponents might view the same claims as dangerous and deviant inventions. New religions themselves often manifest a pronounced ambivalence about their own novelty. A fundamental dynamic in new and alternative religions is that they strive to present themselves as both new and old, as unprecedented and familiar. The novelty of new religions cuts both ways; it can just as easily excite the interest of potential adherents as it can strain their credulity. As they spread their messages to those whose interest, approval, and even acceptance they hope to secure, NRMs proclaim both their challenging novelty and their comforting familiarity. (p. xi-xii)

As this overview suggests, the definition of what counts as a new or alternative religion is frequently open to argument. Many groups that appear dramatically novel to external observers would claim that they are simply being faithful to ancient traditions. Joseph Smith, for example, claimed that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, was a restoration of primitive Christianity. Groups that claim to be innovative often express their messages in the form of fresh interpretations of ancient texts, as with Swami Prabhupada’s effort to present the ancient Indian classic, the Bhagavad-Gita, “as it is”; or Rael’s contention that the mentions of “Elohim” in the biblical book of Genesis actually refer to extraterrestrial beings who came to earth in space ships. Because of the subjective nature of the categories —new to whom? alternative to what?—it will always be difficult to delimit precisely which groups definitely do, and do not, “count” as new or alternative. Moreover, in popular discourse, where the category cult is frequently used but appears devoid of anything other than emotional content, and in interreligious arguments, where cult easily expands to include “virtually anyone who is not us,” attempts at substantive definitions give way entirely to polemics. Discussion of new and alternative religions in the United States thus always refers to a shifting and vigorously contested terrain where categories like “alternative religion” or “cult” and implicit comparisons like those implied by “new religious movement” are used to establish, reinforce, and defend certain kinds of individual and group identities, even as they threaten, compromise, or erode other kinds of individual or group identities.
No mapping of such terrain can hope to be definitive. Too much is in flux. Those who enter the terrain need trustworthy and experienced guides. The essays in these five volumes provide just such guidance. Experienced, authoritative, and plainspoken, the authores of these essays provide both perspectives on some of the most prominent general features of the landscape and full descriptions of many, but by no means all, of the specific areas within it. (p. xiv)

The authors are clearly using "NRM" in a meaningful way, they just want the readers to be sensitive to the fact that the cultural terrain surrounding these groups is contested and that scholars are not in agreement. I have no problem with expressing this in the entry. The various juxtapositions in the above texts are between NRMs, between NRMs and "objective observers", between NRMs and "their opponents", etc. and not between academics. There is disagreement, and as your second set of quotes above attest to, even "irreconcilable differences", but on the one hand this is true for any field of study, and on the other the extreme differences referred to are between minority groups of mostly psychologists who still study "cults" and the majority of the field who have dropped the term. The question to ask here is how much to stress these facts in an encyclopedia entry. The overarching point I'm trying to get across is that 1) way too much is being made of these differences here, and 2) it is not the job of a general reference text to get into these differences at least not in the main entry on the subject matter.PelleSmith (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Pelle, again, this is your opinion, nothing more, and you are attempting to advise us on how we should interpret the sources, I find this problematic. I have a brain, and I can read, I have the titles in front of me, therefore I'm aware of the issues you are raising.Stating that scholars are still engaged in a process (standard academic inquiry) of deciding what definitions and boundaries might apply, really is not a contentious suggestion, so I don't know why you are making such a fuss about a very short mention of this in the article. Multiple sources note that contention exists, and they are all good on the WP:VER front so what's the problem? Measles (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Put that way it is indeed not a contentious suggestion but I've never claimed a statement like that was. Let's recap here.
  • I made an edit to the lead which left the following language in: At one time scholars referred to these groups as "cults", and while that term is still used by the Western media, scholars have almost unanimously abandoned it for NRM. and Use of the term is not universally accepted among the groups to which it is applied,[2] and scholars are not in complete agreement about it's boundaries.
  • You reverted some of my changes and re-instituted this language: Scholars studying the sociology of religion have almost unanimously adopted this term as a neutral alternative to the word "cult". There is still debate on definitions and boundaries.
  • I posted an objection on the talk page regarding the phrase, there is still debate. In this post I made it clear that this is a relatively new field of study, that definitional boundaries are fuzzy, but also that such disagreement is not abnormal in either the social sciences or the humanities.
  • Your first response to this post was to quote from Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America. I took this quote as an attempt to support the notion of active debate in the academy over definitions and boundaries. What I wrote in response directly followed from that assumption. If I misunderstood you then my apologies.
  • In the meantime Paine softened what you wrote to the following: They continue to try to reach agreement on definitions and boundaries. I don't think this way of putting it is problematic nor have I argued that it was. I am cautining against too much of an emphasis on disagreement because while there are fuzzy boundaries, contested cultural terrain and disagreement between some scholars most scholars simply write about NRMs as if it is a meaningful category. And most of the really heated disagreement is also pretty much over since the early 90s. Either way I didn't argue against this new text.
  • Other statements I've made throughout: 1) As I stated this is a new topic of inquiry with a particularly elastic set of boundaries and scholars are not in full agreement by any means. 2) Now it is clear that differences exist, as I said but I just think there are better ways to describe this. 3) There is disagreement, and as your second set of quotes above attest to, even "irreconcilable differences", but on the one hand this is true for any field of study, and on the other the extreme differences referred to are between minority groups of mostly psychologists who still study "cults" and the majority of the field who have dropped the term. 4) The point is that despite diversity and ambiguity scholars are forging ahead in this field and they largely have a similar understanding of what groups fit the label.
The suggestion that I objected to, "stating that scholars are still engaged in a process (standard academic inquiry) of deciding what definitions and boundaries might apply," is plain absurd. What I have tried pointing out is that this process is poorly described as a "debate" and that despite difference, most scholars are not actively engaged in this process, even if they are conscious of it. You have repeatedly decided not to answer or argue against my claim, you simply deride it as an opinion. The point of bringing other general reference works here, was to show that this process is often barely mentioned. I have also suggested that a reference work like Wikipedia is probably not the place to discuss this type of process, as much as it does exist. Below I was just trying to be constructive. At least Lewis is making a substantive point about how the aspects of interest and the groups focused on in the study of NRMs was shaped by past debates. FYI, the study of religion more generally has a large corpus of literature critiquing the field and the category religion itself. Would you argue that we should mention how the category "religion" is still being shaped by scholarly debate in the lead of that entry? We don't mention it because it simply creates unnecessary confusion in a basic reference work like an encyclopedia.PelleSmith (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I never described it as a debate,

The term NRM, which is much debated and somewhat ambiguous, typically refers to religious

groups that have developed, or at least come to the attention of the general public and

political authorities in recent decades in the United States. However, when one examines

the situation outside the bounds of the United States, the term should include some not-so

-new groups in other societies, mainly because groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the

Latterday Saints (Mormons), and many evangelical Protestant groups often get lumped with NRMs in other countries. Some scholars use terms like “minority religion” to encompass this broader grouping, but herein I use “NRM,” but with the broader attribution. (p. 82)

As part of the anticult campaign, a countermeasure was developed to reverse the effects of cultic programming-deprogramming. A debate ensued between anticult activists (including some scholars of NRMs) and most NRM scholars that has created continuing controversy over the meaning and significance of NRMs. (p.73)

From intro toNew Religious Movements: Challenge and response

For students of religion or sociology, New Religious Movements is an invaluable source of information, an example of penetrating analysis, and a series of thought-provoking contributions to a debate which affects many areas of contemporary life in many parts of the world.

Barker in New Religious Movements: Challenge and response:

How many NRMs are there now?: The short answer is that we do not know with much accuracy what the incidence of new religions is. A somewhat longer answer starts with the simple truth that, of course, it all depends on what is meant by an NRM. Do we include each and every New Age group or do we lump them together as a single ‘movement’? Do we include movements within mainstream traditions (Opus Dei, Folkalore, the House Church movement – each House Church)? What about the African Independent Churches? What about the United Reform Church? Are the ‘self-religions’ or Human Potential groups really new religious movements? How new is new? What about Subud, Vedanta or possibly Jehovah’s Witnesses which is the first ‘sect’ that comes to mind in a country such as Italy when the phrase New Religious Movement is mentioned? Might we include even the anti-cult movement – sections of it certainly exhibit several of the characteristics that ‘anti-cultists’ themselves attribute to ‘cults’?

Barker again:

Definitions of movements: There is, of course, no ‘right’ answer. Definitions are more or less useful, not more or less true. The definition from which I personally start – for purely pragmatic reasons – is that an NRM is new in so far as it has become visible in its present form since the Second World War, and that it is religious in so far as it offers not merely narrow theological statements about the existence and nature of supernatural beings, but that it proposes answers to at least some of the other kinds of ultimate questions that have traditionally been addressed by mainstream religions, questions such as: Is there a God? Who am I? How might I find direction, meaning and purpose in life? Is there life after death? Is there more to human beings than their physical bodies and immediate interactions with others?

From intro to Researching new religious movements: responses and redefinitions:

Perhaps the most important ‘first’ that this book achieves is its bold questioning of the whole intellectual apparatus of the Sociology of Religion as it has been applied to the understanding of the New Religious Movements. For the first time this has not been used as the source of an ‘objective’, or, at least, disinterested framework for the research but has itself been held up for interrogation as the product of a complex set of interactions with the other interested parties in what, as the story unfolds, looks more and more like a developing dance, not so much choreographed as improvised, in which all the interested parties move among shifting alliances and hostilities, until it settles into an increasingly predictable pattern.

Arweck on the many questions raised:

My questions included the following: how close can/should academics be to their subjects? How much hospitality should academics accept from NRMs? Should academics

attend NRM-sponsored conferences? If yes, should expenses be accepted? If yes, how much? Should academics attend conferences organized jointly by academics and NRMs? Should participant observation be overt or covert—which or what combination of the two will ensure ‘authentic’ data? If covert participant observation is ruled out as unethical, how do we avoid only seeing the group’s ‘shop window displays’? How much time is needed to investigate a group? How much and what kind of participation should there be in participant observation?
Further questions preoccupied me: should academics stand up for NRMs, for example, by defending their activities at press conferences? Should academics sign petitions on behalf of NRMs? Should academics appear as expert witnesses for NRMs? Should they write affidavits for NRMs? What about the quality of research based on ‘flying’ field visits? Should NRMs impose their agenda on academic conferences, as happened at the 1993 conference in London? What about academics with sympathies or even allegiances to a particular Weltanschauung? What about the increasing number of NRM members enrolled in university programmes? What about NRM graduates in academic posts? Are they any different from theologians or other committed religionists? Should research projects be funded by NRMs? How do academics preserve a ‘healthy’ distance between themselves and their ‘subjects’ to avoid ‘going native’ or adopting a particular group as their tribe or their area of expertise or being adopted in turn by a group as their expert? What about academics ‘with a mission’, who use their academic standing to support and defend a particular position? Commenting on ‘subjects’ and the researcher’s attitude,

Pepinsky uses advice quoted from L.T.Wilkin: ‘Kings and queens have subjects, researchers should not!’ (Pepinsky, 1980:232). Sometimes, academics create the impression that they represent the group they study, simply by using the group-specific vocabulary. (p.18)

Early social scientific study of this ‘new’ phenomenon showed that, despite similarities, NRMs significantly differed from one another. This made it difficult to generalize about them, for example by developing general typologies, as each movement presents distinctive doctrines and tenets. Sweeping generalizations have been a point of friction between academics and the ‘anti-cult movement’ (ACM). Where the ACM might talk about ‘cults’ engaging in a set of activities—itemized in checklists as the ‘marks of a cult’ (see e.g. Pavlos, 1982:4; Hounan and Hogg, 1985: Chapter 6), academics might speak of a particular movement engaging in a particular activity comparable to, although not the same as, another movement’s activity. Conflict of context and purpose regarding their construction explain the ‘gap’ between such statements. Academics construct ‘ideal types’—grounded in both theory and empirical findings—whose purpose and language differ from those required for political or legal contexts. Such typologies accommodate general tendencies in NRMs rather than identical movements: NRMs in a particular category share some, but not all, features. If, for example, asked in court whether all NRMs engage in ‘brainwashing’ or ‘breaking up families’, academics would find it difficult to answer, because academic motives and purpose for NRM categorization differ greatly from those of the ACM, which subsumes them under one heading: ‘movements which take away our children’. Academics also find it difficult to answer, because—as Fenn (1982) suggests—some institutions ‘impose’ their language on those dealing with them and some settings, especially court and classroom, specialize in raising doubts about the trustworthiness, credibility, and authority of ‘serious speech’. (p.31)

An important aspect of all these considerations is that the study of NRMs is a highly sensitive area because of the potential for controversy and contest. The clash of interests between the various participants in the debate are connected to the different agendas which each party pursues. Reconciling research interests with one set of participants may alienate another set and thus preclude research in that area. What paralysed me in my own research at some points were areas where methodological and ethical considerations were closely intertwined and where relative lack of experience and status affected the situation. (p.333)

From New Religious Movements in the Twenty-First Century

It is impossible to estimate accurately the number of NRMs to be found in Britain today (one problem is the definition of a new religion—whether, for example, one includes self-development groups and/or all the small congregations within mainstream religions), but the number could be anywhere from 900 to 2000. (p.26)

Melton introduction to Saliba's Understanding new religious movements:

In the pages that follow, Saliba will offer a variety of standing places from which to view the new religions. Psychology, sociology, history, anthropology, religious studies, the law-each offer insight into the life of the new religions. In the process of moving from one perspective to the other, the reader will gather the most important building blocks from which he or she can then construct a meaningful picture of the world of the new religions. (p.xvi)

Saliba points out that there are multiple perspectives, across different academic disciplines:

This book is based on the assumption that examining the new religions from different academic perspectives is a necessary preliminary step for understanding their presence in our age and for drafting an effective response to their influence. Rather than limiting the observations to the boundaries of one discipline, this study has taken the admittedly more perilous path of considering various approaches, even though these differ in their assumptions, methods, theories, and goals. Thus, historical and sociological approaches are more likely to adopt a position that is religiously neutral. Psychology and psychiatry, however, make a definite evaluation of the mental and emotional health of cult members and the effects membership in new religions might have on their lives. In like manner the legal issues brought about by their presence require that some assessment be made of their activities. Theological reflections are always made from a particular faith perspective and aimed at evaluating religions from welldefined doctrinal and/or moral standpoints.

more on issues raised and another definition:

With this brief overview of the new religious movements of the late twentieth century and the long-term trend in religious pluralism in which they participate, we can begin to answer our starting question-What makes a new religion and what makes it new? What are the new religions whose life is to be examined in the text below? New religions are those innovative and dissenting groups on the fringe of the larger religious community. They are the groups that challenge the beliefs and practices of the majority party while attempting at the same time to challenge the secularity of modern life. We group the different “new” religions together not for attributes they share-they believe and practice a bewildering array of ideas and rituals-so much as for the attributes they lack. They dissent in a serious way from commonly accepted beliefs and practice. (p.xv)

Four major ideal concepts of religious institutions or groups are discussed in sociological literature-church, denomination, sect, and cult. The way these disparate organizations are related both to one another and to society at large, their evolution over the course of time, and the factors that influence their development have been the subject of debate among sociologists well before the debate over the new religions. (p.10)

Because of the ambiguous and derogatory meaning that the word “cult” connotes, attempts have been made, largely by sociologists and religionists, to find a better phrase to designate those religious phenomena popularly known as cults. Phrases like “new religions,’’ “unconventional,” “fringe,” “alternative,” or “nontraditional” religions, “intense religious groups,” and “new religious movements” are common. The last phrase (NRMs for short) is often used in professional literature, even though it has serious deficiencies. (p.11)

Besides the debate on the definition of a new religion, one encounters an even more acrimonious controversy about those characteristics that distinguish the new groups from traditional ones. Both scholarly and popular literature is replete with descriptions of the main qualities that enable one to discriminate between cults and the mainline religious organizations. Many of these characteristics are related to the definition of a cult. Two diverse schools of thought can be found in contemporary literature. Both need to be considered, since their respective views have been debated in society at large and in the law courts. One tends to take a rather negative approach and lists the pejorative qualities of cult ideology and lifestyle. Another adopts a somewhat neutral or cautionary optimistic perspective that concedes that there are good features in the new religious movements, features that may outweigh, in the long run, the defective elements in their beliefs and practices and offer an explanation of why people get involved in them. The major problem with these attempts to depict a cult is that new religions do not form one amorphous or homogenous group with exactly the same characteristics. They do, however, share some traits and can thus be grouped together under one name. (p.14)

At least six issues can be identified in the current debate about the new religious movements. The first deals with the definition of a cult. The second questions the reasons for studying the new religious movements and the methods that should be used to examine them. The third concerns their variety and hinges on whether any generalizations can be made about them. The fourth centers on their distinguishing characteristics. The fifth focuses on the models that are devised to understand why they come into being and to explain their significance for, and impact on, modern Western culture. The sixth discusses the societal response that is appropriate to their persistent presence, a response that is determined by the answers that are given to the first five issues. (p.129)

From Lewis's (ed.) Controversial New Religions (2005)

At the time of this writing, the NRM field continues to expand. Some indicators of this growth are the increasing popularity of the sessions of the New Religious Movements Group at the annual meetings of the American Academy of Religion, the growing number of prominent academic presses publishing NRM titles, and the emergence of NRMs as a recognized field of study in graduate programs in a number of European countries, particularly in the United Kingdom. Additionally, an increasing number of NRM academicians are beginning to subspecialize—hence one now encounters self-identified scholars of the New Age, Pagan specialists, historians of Western esotericism, and the like. One advantage of these subspecialities is that they focus on a reasonably well-defined subject matter. The same cannot be said for the NRM field as a whole. (p.3)

Although the field of new religious movements has achieved the status of a recognized specialty, it is a very odd field of specialization, one that lacks an adequate internal logic for determining which phenomena fall within its purview. Until the development of NRM subspecialities, the core of the field consisted of studies of controversial new religions plus analyses of the “cult” controversy.

In many ways, NRM studies is a residual category. Though the designation “new religions” implies that all kinds of emergent religions are part of this field, in practice NRM scholars have tended to avoid studying movements already claimed by other scholarly specialties. Thus, to cite a few examples, Pentecostalism has been left to church historians and cargo cults to anthropologists (Lewis 2004). This boundary issue is only one of the questions that need to be asked before new religions can become a cohesive field of study rather than an ad hoc grab bag composed of all the groups no other scholarly specialty wants to bother with.

Although NRM studies has been accepted as a legitimate part of the academy, in many ways the field remains segregated from the larger discipline of religious studies, despite the fact that it is easy to make a case for the importance of researching new religions. (p.4)

The controversy over new religions is a complex social issue that has engendered an emotional and sometimes mean-spirited debate. Decades of social conflict have left their impress on the term “cult,” which, to the general public, indicates a religious group that is false, dangerous, or otherwise bad. The sharpness of this controversy has tended to polarize observers of such groups into extreme positions, making it difficult to find a middle ground from which to approach the issue. (p. 5)

We can keep digging, but it's clear this is a controversial subject, and not simply because of the cult versus NRM debacle, it is simply a complex area because it includes such a wide range of perspectives, it seems natural that debate would continue, so I'm not clear why you want to avoid mention of it, but as I said, I have no problem with the wording discussed above. Measles (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Look I don't want to waste my time haggling over this. The use of "debate" at the top of your list of quotes refers to debate between "anticult activists (including some scholars of NRMs) and most NRM scholars", which is what I've been trying to point out all along. The terms used to label these groups are usually contested between scholars and other groups, or between those other groups (NRMs and the ACM, etc.). Clearly there is disagreement amongst scholars on definitional boundaries as well, but the overarching controversy surrounding these terms is not located in the academy itself. Can we at least agree on this? Most of the material you have brought here yourself indicates that fact. Much of the rest of those quotes can be applied to the broader category religion as well. There are also drastic methodological differences in the general study of religion and definitions are notoriously slippery. Again there is a vast literature on this (and as one might imagine much more vast and thorough). My main concern is undermining the informational value of this entry by highlighting scholarly disagreement in ways that I don't see us doing elsewhere. The reason why it becomes highlighted in this and related entries while not in others has to do with the fact that people who care deeply about one side or another in some of these controversies frequently edit this encyclopedia. Similar things happen in other areas like for instance those edited frequently by nationalist editors. We should be keeping this kind of controversy out of our entries not encouraging it. There is most certainly a place for the neutral discussion of prominent controversies and/or for the general level of consensus in a given field of study, but our primary purpose here is to write encyclopedia articles about subject matters which provide people with information about them. It may be helpful in this regard to create an entry on the "cult controversy", for instance and to use such an entry to discuss definitional issues and various other disagreements more fully within the greater cultural context.PelleSmith (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but again, I disagree, and you seem to be discounting many examples above that clearly demonstrate that there are other issues which need noting, and the issues appear to be peculiar to the subject for a number of reasons, many of which are also worth noting. I really don't see the harm in touching on the matter, and in the context of how we do things on Wikipedia, I don't find it in the least bit controversial. Measles (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
while we're at it here's another good one, from a 2007 publication Teaching New Religions :

The rise of new religious movements (NRMs) has been one of the hallmarks of Western culture over the last fifty years. Scholars from different disciplines have been involved in studying and trying to explain the origin and success of NRMs in an age when religion seemed to be on the decline. The new movements have also been a source of conflict and debate, sorting scholars into four major camps: (1) those who look on them as social and/or psychological aberrations, (2) those who examine them as social or cultural organizations, (3) those who study them as genuine religious expressions, and (4) those who denounce them as false religions and/or diabolical intrusions in the search for truth. (p.41)

interestingly there is also the matter of the perspective of feminist scholars, which has also added to the debate within academia, we'll get on to that next. Measles (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
also in Teaching New Religions

Amid the controversies and social conflicts that came to be associated with the study of new religions, feminist critiques of the movements contributed additional insights that further problematized the study of new religions in contemporary society. (p. 232)

That critical approach shown in the feminist literature was the foundation for the study of abuse in new religious movements, an area of research that covers a wide range of behaviors including physical and sexual violence. (p. 233)

Findings such as these have caused a controversy within the sociology of religion, particularly among those scholars who emphasize the virtues rather than the problems of new religious movements. For the most part, the sociological literature on NRMs has avoided the difficult questions of gendered violence and sexual exploitation, emphasizing instead the constructive and functional aspects of religious commitment. In an effort to protect religious freedom and to counter the stigma typically associated with alternative religious groups, scholars in the sociology of religion have often been reluctant to recognize and discuss the abusive practices of these movements, despite the violence identified in the research. At academic conferences and in reviews of the literature, feminist scholars who have brought these abuses to the attention of their colleagues have been heavily critiqued and the accounts of their informants have come under attack and are viewed with suspicion. (p. 233)

Pelle, are you going to discount all of this as well? Measles (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Measels can I make two suggestions to aid communication here: 1) When someone has made several different claims, observations, statements etc. it is helpful to address them specifically so that one understands exactly what it is you are disagreeing with and 2) when quoting from edited volumes it also helps to state the authors name since more often than naught very similar papers are published in multiple volumes by the same scholars. The author of the first piece you are quoting from Teaching New Religious Movements is John A. Saliba who often writes specifically on these very issues and whom you have quoted before. Note that Melton, does not dwell on these controversies in the introduction of that same volume, and indeed taken as a whole the volume itself does not either (nor do other such reference works). In the second set of quotes Janet Jacobs is explicitly making reference to the "cult controversies" when she refers to the "controversies and social conflicts that came to be associated with the study of new religions". The essay then goes on to talk about controversies surrounding gendered violence in NRM groups. However, Jacobs is not questioning the definitional boundaries of the term NRM, nor is she making reference to a debate about these boundaries. In fact her very argument necessitates a relatively agreed upon notion of what qualifies as an NRM in the first place. In your mixed bag of quotes Lewis and Saliba most clearly discuss the lack of definitional boundaries and most heavily critique the NRM field for this. But there is a difference between the debates that grew out of the cult controversy, for instance, and the more general lack of definitional cohesion. My concern remains as it has been. You can quote people till the cows come home who write dedicated, but small sections of much larger volumes on NRMs about the growing pains that this field has had and still has, but one has to look at the larger picture to put this discourse in perspective. One also has to be clear about exactly what controversies and debates one is discussing, because while they may be related they are not simply the same. In the end I'm not sure I understand the argument in terms of Wikipedia as a reference work. Are there similar entries we might compare this to? Help me understand.PelleSmith (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
your concern remains unfounded and it amazes me how patronising you continue to be while ignoring the obvious dearth of material that could be used to demonstrate that the study of NRM's is fraught with difficulties; and you don't think this is noteworthy in an encyclopedic context? You seem intent on presenting this as a simplistic matter, when it isn't. The snippets above simply serve to demonstrate that the study of NRM's is not the scholarly bed of roses you suggest it is, and you have presented nothing here to demonstrate otherwise except your opinion; and you then have the audacity to suggest that there is something unusual about highlighting any of this? You also choose to ignore the fact that the study of NRM's is a multi-disciplinary area (sociology, religious studies, anthropology, history, psychology); which compounds the issue of definitions and boundaries still further. You felt the CESNUR cite was outdated, so, we now have other more recent examples that amplify the point, what's your issue exactly? Measles (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem to chose not to deal with any of the issues I've brought forth, instead you just invent things about my position like the idea that the study of NRMs is a "bed of roses". Of course you also attack me persistently for being "patronizing". The study of NRMs is no bed of roses, but then again neither is the study of religion, which is even more interdisciplinary than the study of NRMs and suffers from equally difficult, if not more entrenched, definitional problems relating to its subject matter. I asked you about this comparison but you remain silent. The central issue as I see it is how we should deal with these types of problems in an encyclopedia. Why not engage that point head on? I've suggested many times over that a vast majority of what is written about NRMs, in both specialized studies and in more general reference texts (like the very ones you are quoting) uses the term as a meaningful category without letting the notion that the field is "fraught with difficulties" get in the way. This is true for every collection you've chosen to quote one or two essays from, as well as others. Do I have to list all the essays which are not about the history of the field to prove this point because that's not my opinion it is an easily measurable fact? Anyone can crack open these volumes and see what I'm talking about. It is also true that even more general reference works, like the Encyclopedia of Religion and Society don't deal with these difficulties at all (or at least in any way close to what you are presenting here). Like the editors of that volume, I'm cognizant of these "difficulties" and their place in the history of the discipline as well as their role in making definitional consensus difficult. I have not once denied any of this, though the straw man you have erected of me certainly has--congrats on that. Like the editors of the afore mentioned work I don't find those difficulties important enough to delegitimize an entry about this subject to the extent that it seems you are. I have tried to constructively suggest that an entry could be spun out to deal with those issues specifically. What do you think about that? More generally I've asked in good faith for some other examples on Wikipedia that are comparable to this one and would support your take on how to present the subject. Why not engage in conversation instead of this utter hostility with which you've treated me from the first moment you engaged my suggestion to tone down a sentence. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
because I don't find your argument convincing, and I also feel it is appropriate to support ones argument using relevant sources. You have not done this so you could easily be mistaken for someone who has a personal agenda here. I also don't accept the notion that wikipedia should adhere to the format adopted by other tertiary sources, also, in terms of other examples of treating a subject matter in a particular standardised manner, it's a moot point, as the sources used to support the assertion made adhere to WP:VER. I also do not find the comparison you make with the study of religion as a whole very accurate. NRS is a new field of inquiry, that is precsiely why problems exist, and why definitions and boundaries are still open to question. I'll reiterate some points raised above:

Although the field of new religious movements has achieved the status of a recognized specialty, it is a very odd field of specialization, one that lacks an adequate internal logic for determining which phenomena fall within its purview.

One advantage of these subspecialities is that they focus on a reasonably well-defined subject matter. The same cannot be said for the NRM field as a whole

This boundary issue is only one of the questions that need to be asked before new religions can become a cohesive field of study rather than an ad hoc grab bag composed of all the groups no other scholarly specialty wants to bother with.

Can I suggest that if you still have an issue with mention of this you pursue WP:RFC because without demonstrating your position using appropriate sources you really are doing nothing here except pushing a point of view. Measles (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Constructive suggestion perhaps

Part of the problem I have with mentioning the strong notion of "debate" being discussed above is that it implies a level of disagreement in the field that questions not just the use of the term, but the meaningfulness of studies that focus on NRMs. There are ways, however, to discuss the major disagreements in the larger field of study in ways that are, in my view, more informative. In the Oxford Handbook James R. Lewis writes:

  • Because of this focus, it is appropriate to ask what this field of study might look like if not for the cult controversy. Certainly one of the major differences would be that existing scholarship would not be clustered around a couple dozen small groups. There have been more than a few major studies of groups such as the Unification Church that have a relatively small presence in Western countries. In contrast, there have been no monographs written about much larger—but less controversial—new religions like Eckankar. A more comprehensive approach that examined the many NRMs not locked in social conflict would likely provide a much different picture of the nature of these movements. Perhaps certain characteristics shared by the majority of new religions might have been warped or even missed as a consequence of focusing on the controversial groups. (p. 8)

The "cult controversy" was very influential in shaping the direction of NRM research in the 70s and 80s and this has implications to the more general attributes of and theories about NRMs which have been published over the years. Hotly debated topics within the cult controversy like "brainwashing" and "mind control" also pushed researchers to look into specific areas of interested like how these groups recruited and maintained members (while, as Lewis suggests, focusing on a very select number of groups). Of course the cult controversy is pretty much over since it's major focus, "brainwashing", legitimately become a fringe position in the late 80s. Anyway how about following Lewis' lead in thinking of ways to discuss disagreement and controversy without over emphasizing it.PelleSmith (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But it hasn't been over emphasised at all, so again, I fail to see what your concern is. Measles (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, stating that the definitional boundaries are a still subject of debate over emphasizes this aspect. As I mentioned above the current language seems fine.PelleSmith (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
If I may comment about all this wonderful back-and-forth, perhaps the concern here is to "not state the obvious"? (which, I have heard, is the "secret of wisdom") Stating that there is controversy in religion, new or old, is pretty much like saying, "Paine, you're an old fart!" Both statements are obviously true, so there is little reason to bring them up... usually. In this case, though, I would have to agree that some small mention about science's work toward focusing the realm of NRM is necessary. Wikipedia readers may already know a little something about NRMs, and they come here to perhaps learn even more. I feel that if the article didn't at least touch on the controversy, readers would come away feeling as if something were missing from the article.
Let's face it, fellow editors, the discussion of religion, whether new or old, can be fraught with strong feelings and easy arguments. Why do you think that, back in 1973 when I went to Ethiopia as a Peace Corps volunteer, one of the first things our new group was told was to never discuss any of four subjects with anyone, especially those who were native to Africa. Those four taboo subjects were race, politics, sex and religion. It's hard for some to imagine how you feel while you're cringing in your small room listening to the Muslims and Christians battling it out somewhere near your house. There were times when we actually expected to hear helicopters coming in to lift us out of all that. So please, friends, let's please continue to make with the AGF. Do that and you will have my sincerest gratitude!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  15:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

CESNUR as a reliable source

Two cites using the CESNUR website have problems:

  • An article by Massimo Introvigne.[24] Doesn't this amount to self-publishing? I don't believe that there is a CESNUR editorial board which reviews Massimo Introvigne's articles, some of which are clearly personal opinion (sometimes heated).
  • Another is a copy of a paper,[25] presented at the Association for Sociology of Religion, which notes at the top "Preliminary version. © Massimo Introvigne 1999. Do not cite or reproduce without the written consent of the author." (emp added.) AndroidCat (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
unless the second item above has since been published elsewhere, it should not be cited here. Not sure about the first issue, there have been discussions on the CESNUR problem on other NRM related discussions. I think most are now generally accepting that Introvigne is viewed as an expert, his organization has also achieved some credibility within certain academic circles, despite alleged conflicts of interest. There are issues, but I suspect someone will inevitably demonstrate how widely CESNUR research is cited in NRS texts. Measles (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we propagating a POV?

The intro of the article claims that NRM is

a neutral alternative to the word "cult".

now, in my opinion, a new religion is not necessarily a cult. While the idea of using a neutral term as an alternative to a loaded and ill-defined word, is a good thing, the idea that "New religious movement" should be a neutral alternative to "cult" is actually loading the term NRM with a negative connotation. Cults are not per se religious. They are not per se new. Those new religious movement that aren't cults, get the "cult" connotation by claiming that "NRM" is a terminological alternative to "cult". Instead the intro should claim that sociologists erected a term to try to cover a kind of new religious movements, that derrogatorily have formerly sometimes been described as "cults" by detractors... or some such. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 18:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is all a bit of a muddle, isn't it? There doesn't seem to be a clear concept of what the term actually means. In the literal sense, for example, liberal Christianity is an NRM.
When you say that cults are not per se new, that's true in the sense that it doesn't follow from the definition: "A cult is a religious group in opposition to the surrounding society." (which incidentally means that Catholicism is a cult in Saudi Arabia, China & North Korea, where it's banned). However, as an empirical fact of sociology, a cult either becomes part of society, thus ceasing to be a cult, or dies out. Thus in fact cults are always new. Peter jackson (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference and book review

You will want to add to your references "Comprehending Cults: the Sociology of New Religous Movements" by Lorne L Dawson (Oxford University Press) and now in its second edition. And a link to this review of Dawson: http://www.cjsonline.ca/reviews/cults.html Thanks for a fine article. Rumjal rumjal 05:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Controversial NRMs not mentioned

There is a deficiency in the article - controversial NRMs are not mentioned, seemingly because they are mentioned separately in another article, cults. There is currently a debate over the word. I suggest including references to NRMs that are called cults as well.

Sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

See also

Why? New religious movement is just a conscious replacement for "cult", intended to remove the negative connotations for some tolerance reason.
Otherwise sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pop Culture and New Religions

I think there needs to be some more joining of the dots between pop culture and the new religions it is helping to spawn, eg.

  • Science Fiction Inspired: Jedi religion, Matrixism, Church of All Worlds, Scientology, Raelians, Heavens Gate, Alien channelers, Matrixism
  • Fantasy Inspired: Faerie Wicca, Otherkin (identify with mythical creatures)
  • Horror Inspired: Vampire religion (both psychic and sanguinarian) and Therianthropy
  • Humour Inspired: Discordianism and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism

Matt

Sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad term

I don't know how to cleanup this article, because maybe the term is unclean. The content seems to be accurate but the article makes no sense. It is reasonable to believe that the term cult increasingly got bad connotations, and therefore that the term "new religious movement" was coined as a replacement, but the sections Definitions and Joining seems to indicate that the term became fluff instead of a clear well defined term despite 100 years of experience. Measuring between my index finger and my thumb I get the following impression: there are movements that are pretty "new" and that attain a "religious" surface. These can probably be subdivided into:

  • movements that are really religious,
  • movements that are not, and that produces pure unusable mental rubbish

and also that:

  • some of these groupings are totalitarian (std Soviet methods) and imprisons adherents into spiritual slavery
  • but many more are not totalitarian

and also that totalitarian groupings are pretty ineffective and utilizes lots of effort to keep individuals under controle, so that it either

  • becomes extinct, or
  • reforms itself.

By confusing all this, one ascertains a dysfunctional term. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And there's always the irrelevant heresy vs. orthodoxy term to add in for added confusion. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Families of denominations

Only general families are listed here (tens of thousands of individual denominations exist); some of these groups do not consider themselves as part of the Protestant movement, but are generally viewed as such by scholars and the public at large:

To him that typed the above "denominations:" to denominate is to become a religious sect(ion), that I do state to become a religious section, of an established religious cult, also known as "religion." Debate only exists surrounding such topics as denominations, protestants, religious cults, religious occults, and religions, due to the common man's lack of knowledge concerning symmantics, etymology, and histories. Protestant is one that protests. The word protestant is capitalized when referring to one of the Protestant Movement--those protesting the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of England and the Church of Germany, being those Anglicans (followers of the King of the English, representative of England) and Lutherans (followers of Luther), were Protestant of the Roman Catholic Church, and so Anglicans and Lutherans are Protestant (Protestants is really vulgar). Lutherans could be considered not in Protest, how ever, as Luther only wanted to reform the Roman Catholic religion. Lutheranism would then be considered a theo-/philosophical sect of Roman Catholicism; instead, though, Lutheranism is so established that it is a sect of Christianity (the cult of Jesus Christ as from Judaism) like Roman Catholicism. So called Puritans, Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, etc. are for the most part, depending upon what one believes to be et cetera, all reformed Anglicans or protestant Anglicans. Puritans are reformed Anglicans, as were Lutherans reformed Roman Catholics. Congregationalists are protestant Anglicans, being that they did not wish to be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury (Pope of the Church of England, English Catholic Church). Presbyterians are reformed Anglicans, as are under the Church of Scotland; how ever, as they did schism with the Roman Catholic Church in the same period as the Church of England, the Church of Scotland may be considered not at all a Scottish development from the British influence of the Church of England but rather a Protestant denomination from Roman Catholicism--and so a sect of Christianity. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry...

I'm very sorry but this page is all about cults, isn't it supposed to be about "religious movements"?

I've removed the following:

Matrix

This needs to stop being added in. Unless time passes that we know this is not a fad and is a real movement it should be excluded - there are plenty of websites devoted to fictional religions that seem real: Klingon Ecumenical Alliance for one, The Order of the Sisters of Zathras for another. Trödel|talk 7:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, it's all right ;)! Matrix is not a "NRM". (..I had to fix the obfuscated HTML code though...) Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubious!!

Now, consider the text layout:

  • 1. intro OK,
  • 2. section Definitions:
Although there is no one criterion or set of criteria for describing a group as a "new religious movement," use of the term usually requires that the group be both of recent origin and different from existing religions.

which is a non-definition, because it doesn't add anything to the concept New religious movement that cannot be inferred from the combination of the words "new", "religious" and "movement", the definition is not valid,

  • 3. section Terminology (end):
A number of alternatives to the term new religious movement are used by some scholars. These include: alternative religious movements (Miller), emergent religions, (Ellwood) and marginal religious movements (Harper and Le Beau).

Now the business becomes serious (acc2 WP:OR, WP:SYNTH possibly also WP:POV): it appears that even the article try to define a concept NRM is dubious, because it concocts a concept from disparate concepts with no clear connection. I do not doubt that there is a malformed concept New religious movement out there, I've heard about it as a label confusing the businesses of para-religions, minor religions with destructive and evil cults, but Wikipedia cannot write like this: the article must – in this very case – instead find external sources concocting this original-research-kind of confused concept and then compare them. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Criticism section belongs to Anti-cult movement, not here. A link from here to there would suffice. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
When does a group move from being "recent" to older than recent? Is recent the last 25 years? 50 years? 100 years? 150 years? 500 years? Exactly where is the line drawn. It seemed that there was a time frame once used of the last 150 years, however that seems to have been cast aside. Who finally decides who is and who is not a NRM or when a group moves from being an NRM to an established group? This seems too loose to almost be meaningless. -StormRider 05:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I think what happened was, somebody coined the term New Religious Movement as a euphemism for cult, and the term stuck. But the term is certainly not ideal. It focuses on the "newness" of the movement, which is just an incidental property of a cult in its academic sense. Yes, cults are generally fairly new, but that is not what defines them. Rather, they are defined by a separation with a surrounding religious culture, and they differ from the more inclusive term sects because cults are founded on charismatic authority. So every revolutionary new religious movement, like Christianity and Islam, starts out as a cult. But they were not cults simply because they were new. I think all sociologists must know this, but a euphemism has been chosen, and nobody can really change it now. COGDEN 08:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The point of the term is to move away from being judgmental. "Cult" is not a useful sociological term because of its popular use. NRM is meant to be vague, so that even Pentecostalism and movements within Pentecostalism that are newer (like the British New Church Movement in the UK, can come within the remit of sociological analysis without being subject to judgment in advance. Hyper3 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I think there is probably ambiguity, and maybe the article should address this: in one sense,the term new religious movement is nothing more than a euphemism for the word cult within a cult-sect-denomination-church spectrum. On the other hand, non-sociologists may interpret the term NRM quite literally when classifying religious, and focus merely on absolute newness, so that the term would incorporate Pentecostalism, various evangelical megachurches, and charismatic Christianity, which are so intertwined with mainstream culture, at least in America, that they could hardly have been described as a sociological cult. COGDEN 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
So when does a cult become mainstream, or newness is no longer new? Who decides this issue? In Christianity do we look to the Catholic Church to define when a group is no longer a cult/NRM? Churches that have been around for more than 100 years, possess millions of members, multinational, etc. such as JWs, LDS, etc. when are they no longer a cult? Should this answer be left to anti-cultists or is it more the sociologists or who? It seems that the term cult will always be used by some groups to define other groups; it is to their benefit to do so. This all seems to be almost useless because all it takes is the "majority" i.e. a large group to define another group as a cult and viola you have a cult.
In looking at thereferencess for the LDS Church to be classified as an NRM, it is easy to see that they are all anti-cultists or Christians that classify everyone else a cult if they disagree with their doctrine. That seems hardly objective or neutral.
If NRM is just a euphemism, why not just be honest and call groups a cult? If we use NRM just as a euphemism it will not be long until the same degree of negative emotion will be transferred to the term. Although I do think groups like Walter Martindale's Bible Answer Man will always use the term cult because they do not have the patience to use NRM. I think NRM was not created to be an euphemism, but rather an academic term to define NEW, actually NEW religious groups that were unique in some way from mainstream churches. Forcing this term to be a euphemism allows editors to appeal to anti-cultists as if they were reliable references rather than purely those with a doctrinal axe to grind. -StormRider 11:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the current state of play makes simple definition hazardous. But its this sort of reality that an encyclopaedia should be able to negotiate well! We should insist on defining terms as closely as we can, with ambiguity one of the features defined. What is certain, is that being new is not the same as harmful; being old is not the same as trustworthy. Hyper3 (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you opinion; however, we are working with a term, NRM, and then using "references" that supposedly use that term. The problem is that each supposed expert reference uses their own definition to suit their own personal definition. Walter Martindale and his Kingdom of the Cults is anything but objective and his personal definition for a cult is anyone that disagrees with his definition of a Christian or Christian doctrine. It is unfortunate, this whether we call it cult or NRM it is meaningless. There is no definition agreed upon by anyone, it is a subjective term that academics use to not insult anyone and others posing as academics can use to appear informed. This is rubbish unfortunately. -StormRider 10:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
This represents the current state of the debate - which is very normal in all sorts of disciplines, especially near the beginning of a paradigm change in approach. What we need to find is an academic that says what you have just said! I don't think that we should dismiss it as "rubbish" however - as a researcher myself, I know to value the earlier moments of debate and disagreement that later and clearer statements rely upon. I think you want to point out that not everyone is using the term in an academic/reasonable/helpful way - and that should be noted in the article. Hyper3 (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
NRM scholars themselves are aware that there is no agreed definition for "newness", and no agreement whether the cut-off date should be, say, 1850 or 1950. The text we have does quite a good job describing the situation. --JN466 13:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_religious_movement/Archive_1&oldid=1136251455"