Talk:List of cult and new religious movement researchers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Article Renamed

I think that this list should be re-named into list of cults and new religious movements researchers. Some people who are listed here, such as Eileen Barker, generally avoid the term cult. Others find it a appropriate term as long as it properly and neutrally defined. Andries 06:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the minor change that cult and movement should be singular terms (having 'list of cults' as the first three words is misleading). Title is still a little clunky. Antonrojo 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: the comment above was moved from List of cult researchers to preserve the discussion. Antonrojo 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move Rick Ross?

Rick Ross does not fit the stated criteria. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't easily find information about his education. However, the intended purpose is to list researchers who get peer or government review for their work and try to avoid pro or anti-cult statements in an attempt to be neutral which probably isn't the case here. I'm adding him to the List of anti-cult organizations and individuals since he's listed as a 'cult de-programmer' and 'exit counsler'. A few arguments for removing him from this list are 1) he has no formal degree in a related area [1] and 2) no peer reviewed research. On the other hand since he's served as an expert witness in trials, and started an institute that seems to have a fairly objective view of cults, I think a fair argument can be made that he's a 'margin case' between the two lists. My inclination is to remove him from the list and I wouldn't revert that. Feedback from people who know his work better would be good.Antonrojo 20:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that moving Mr. Ross to that category is more accurate.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes,

1. what about the fact that he has served as an expert witness at trials and started an institute with the title for the study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements?
2. What about the fact that he has served as a consultant to the FBI,
3. lectured at numerous universities on the topic,
4. been a paid consultant to the television and media on the subject,
5. been deposed as an expert witness in 8 states (this alone should be enough, if 8 other courts think he is an expert witness?

For the above reasons I will add him back in to the list.

Yours, Smeelgova 20:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

No one is arguing that he is not a consultant, or that he paricipated as an exper witness. But that does not make him a researcher, to warrant a listing alongside scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see him more an an activist. He's been an advocate of the theory of mind control, he is a former deprogrammer, and he was involved in the FBI/ATF raid on Waco. There is, of course, controversy over how much he influenced the decision to storm the compound. In any case, he does not conduct "research": he's not an academic or scholar of any kind, no matter how much anti-cult people are determined to cite him as an "expert". --Uncle Ed 15:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] subsections

• Perhaps we should find some way to split this group into subsections/organize? Smeelgova 20:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Sure. Maybe by their credentials, such as Sociologists of Religion, Psychiatrists, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Smeelgova 00:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC).