Talk:J. Gordon Melton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.
This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
To-do list for J. Gordon Melton: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand:
    • Rebuttals on cult apologism criticism
    • Material Melton's testimony before the "Maryland Cult Task Force" [1]
    • Expand citations/examples of apologism
    • Expand criticism section (disputed)
    • Conflicts of interest

I don't think that Melton is a sociologist. Andries 01:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

He can be considered one: He works with sociologists and coublishes papers. Check [2] --Zappaz 18:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The article says nowhere that he has a degree in sociology. Andries 18:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
You'r right. Thanks. --Zappaz 19:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I think he's primarily a religious scholar, and I don't think he ever said Aum Shinriko was "innocent". He probably said that the man deserved to be tried. So I've taken out the following from the criticism section:

erroneously declared Aum to be innocent

Can we get a source, or at least a quote for "declared them innocent"? Because if he only said "should be considered innocent until proven guilty" or something else other than THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT then that should be in the arrticle, instead of the current "defending those nasty mass murderers" bit of defamation. Uncle Ed 20:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Introvigne wrote this somewhere and Anton Hein too. He went together with James Lewis who in contrast to Melton suspected Aum Shinrikyo of drugs trafficking. Andries 22:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I also read it in the book NRMs in the 21st century but the names of the persons were omitted because it was clearly a painful affair for them. Andries 22:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Vampirism

Why isn't his self-identification as a vampire (for which he has been mocked by many) included? AnonMoos 16:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because others aren't aware of it? I suggest you be bold and add it. Antonrojo 12:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you have sources for this? Smeelgova 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
All I had were memories of sarcastic Internet postings by cult-apologist watchers (in which it seemed apparent that he takes the Vampire thing as seriously as the most fanatical Trekkie takes Star Trek), but in the article as it stands at the current moment, footnotes 9-15 are devoted to documenting this.AnonMoos 14:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

That section speaks about one thing only: the accusations of cult apologism. There is no need to divide it subsections, unless the idea is to give more prominence to the critics in the table of contents. And that is unacceptable as per NPOV undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Please allow the subheadings to stay in. There are more sources out there for these subheadings and this information will be added, and the subsections expanded. At present the article is way too unbalanced. Smeelgova 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Each of these matters are separate issues, and not simply "allegations of cult apologism." Smeelgova 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

These are exactly that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have compromised and removed the subsections and replace them with subheadings only. They will not appear in the Table of Contents. Hopefully once these subheadings have been expanded upon with more information from cited sources, they can stand alone as individual subsections. For the moment I will mark this article as unbalanced. Smeelgova 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Please stop. Cult apologism references and the Aum Shirinkyo incident should be explained separately. Smeelgova 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Subheadings were incorrect, and I fixed them. Please do not undo all my edits and give me a chance to contribute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop for a moment. I have a method to this. I am attempting to compromise with you. I was in the middle of editing when you interrupted me. At least give me a chance to try to work with you and take a break from this article for just 10 minutes. Please. Smeelgova 16:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Fair enough. But do not use the {{inuse}} tag or the unbalance tag without discussing first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jossi

Why are you not agreeing to your peace offering??? I was actively editing this article before you. I was in the process of major editing. I was attempting to compromise with you. Why are you being so impatient with me? If you give me a chance you will see that I will work and compromise, but you have to stop reverting all of my changes. Please. Smeelgova 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
I said OK above. But do not use these tags while you are editing. The inuse tage can be used when there is an agreement that one editor wants to edit for a while. The Unbalanced tag is one used to invite a discussion, not to make a point. So have your 15 minutes, and add the {{Infobox_Scientist}} as well as you have done on other articles, if you could. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I will. Sigh. Thank you. I would also like for us to discuss more on the talk page why you feel that you don't agree with the subheadings before changing this. I have compromised and removed them from the subsections format, as you requested, so that they do not show up in the Table of Contents, as you has wanted. As you request, I will add the scientist infobox if you give me a chance. Thank you. Smeelgova 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Unbalanced

Per the "Unbalanced" box: A Wikipedian has expressed the opinion that this article or section is unbalanced. Please help improve the article by adding information and sources on neglected viewpoints.

  • This is not an RFC, yet, but a request for other editors who are not actively involved or invested in opinions about the subject matter of this article - to weigh in on the unbalanced state, and lack of enough criticism as balanced against other material in the article. There are more sources/citations out there about criticism of this individual's actions, monetary compensation/influence on research, and research itself. I believe that criticism of J. Gordon Melton is a "neglected viewpoint." Thank you. Smeelgova 16:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

The criticism of Melton is not neglected as there is a full section on criticism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I agree with your moving the tag, however, the criticism section could certainly be expanded with relation to the rest of the material and the size of the article. Please, I am still making some more edits. Please bear with me. Smeelgova 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Let us see if other less POV editors than ourselves will comment in this section about their opinions. Smeelgova 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
I do not see many editors flocking to edit this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Let us allow the rest of this particular section for other editors. Give it time please. Smeelgova 17:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Original research

The sentence "Melton is critical of anti-NRM sources, and especially the testimonies of former members" is OR. The source provided discusses concerns of testimonies of former members in detail. That is not "criticism" but scholarship. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal

We need to add rebuttals from Melton, related to accusations of "cult apologism". There are good sources for this: [3] and [4] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subheadings

  • I honestly feel that the subheadings provide logical clarity for the reader. I also feel that there are distinct differences in sources and material relating to the various aspects of criticism. It does not all simply focus on the label of cult apologist. The Aum Shrinkyo incident, financial motivations, etc. each stand alone in their own right. Other new religious movement scholars have been criticized on each of these points, and yet not necessarily been accused of cult apologism in the same stroke. These examples/sources/citations should be cultivated separately. As to the use of the subheadings format in general in the article - I feel that it is a good way to separate out sources and interesting material. Even if the material is slightly related to other section - in this manner it can flow from one subheading to the next, kind of like a segue. Smeelgova 17:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
The subheadings in the whole article are quite random and confusing. The criticism section should be kept small, after all this is a biographical article and not an article on the political opponents in the ACM. That is fully described in other articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Evidently you do not feel that way on articles like Margaret Singer. Significant criticism exists on this highly controversial individual from reputable sources. These should be included in the article. Smeelgova 17:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Of course. Each and all significant criticism should be included. The controversy about Singer, is a most different situation: legal disputes, conspiracy theories and the lot. Also note that this is a BLP and Singer's article is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Just because a person is not living does not give someone the right to denigrate them in such a manner. And Melton is arguably just as controversial as you believe Singer to be. That Aum Shrinkyo thing, and accepting money from groups like Aum and Children of God??? And defending People's Temple??? Yeesh. Smeelgova 17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Sure he is controversial. Any scholar worth its salt will raise controversy one way or another. As a BLP, we have guidelines that we need ty follow that are more stringent than for other articles, in particular about sources. I would argue that the article on Singer and DIMPAC is excellently sourced thanks to our combined efforts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well then Jossi, was that almost a compliment about acknowledging my efforts? Hrm... maybe we are gettings somewhere... Smeelgova 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Violations of BLP

Please do not add poorly sourced speculation to this article as it is in violation of WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not poorly sourced. I have provided citations for every single sentence, and most of it is backed up by the "Coffin Breaks" article. Smeelgova 17:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
I read the article. Show me were it speaks of Melton being a director of such society. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps that particular article only said he was a member of the society. At any rate, I am in the process of providing some very interesting citations - from CESNUR's own website no less! Evidently Introvigne and Melton are quite proud of their Vampire heritage and Melton's title as "Dracula Ambassador" - just don't quite know why that belongs on a Study of New Religions web site... WIP... Smeelgova 17:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Just be careful, Smeelgova with citing sources and extrapolating POVs. You must be reading too many ACM articles in which they attempt to discredit this brilliant scholar. I mean, this [5]] is just way too funny. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are reading too many Dracula conferences where they extol him? Please do not assume what I am doing or attempt to characterize me on talk-pages. That is highly inappropriate. Smeelgova 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
What, exactly is your argument? The stuff about vampires is real, and so is the "neck" quote. Both Introvigne and Melton are vampirologists. I have "The Vampire book" by Melton right here at home. --Tilman 19:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Which "neck" quote are you referring to? Is this something that could go in the article? Smeelgova 19:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Melton says that he, Introvigne and their friends are "a bunch of silly people dressing up and biting each other on the neck." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J. Z. Knight

Melton also testified in trial and later in a book funded by JZ Knight that she is sincere and not a fraud. (See LA Times 26.7.1998 and [6] )

(About her sincerity: J.Z. Knight sued Julie Ravell, another "Ramtha" channeler, in Austria for copyright violation and "interfering in a business" [7] [8] ) --Tilman 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] *The Transylvanian Society of Dracula

A "professional organization"? Really? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Transylvanian Society of Dracula is a non-profit, cultural-historical organization specializing in two main areas of interest.... The vampire myth, particularly that of Dracula (in the West) and the impact of this character on the culture and myths of Romania. Vlad Dracula or Vlad the Impaler, the 15th century ruler of Wallachia (part of the modern Romania.) Since the appearance of his namesake, Bram Stoker's vampire Count Dracula in 1897, the work of an ever-growing number of writers and film-makers has been i nspired by Stoker's creation. This has resulted in an increasing awareness and interest in the fascinating history of Vlad Dracula. The Society provides a clearing house of information pertaining to the serious study of Dracula and related topics. Its members comprisehistorians, folklorists, literary critics, researchers, students, film enthusiasts - anyone with a serious interest in Dracula.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance, NPOV, and minority views

Please take some time and refresh your memories in regard to the distinctions between NPOV, balance, and minority views.

Read:

And the FAQ Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22

The reason I am asking this, is because of a trend I have observed on some editors that use the argument of "balance" as a way to introduce certain views as if these were majority views or more significant that they are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please add more to the summary from other areas of his life that are important. But these criticisms have been raised about Melton time and time again. I will restore. You can add more to the intro to provide "balance" from other sources. Smeelgova 16:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
Yes, these have been raised again and again by opponents. And proper weight should be given accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I have restored a compromise/version of intro. We need more info on how Melton has been discredited as a witness due to the Aum Shinrikyo and People's Temple comments in several instances in the article. Smeelgova 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
Please add more info to intro if you feel you must, but leave in the conflict of interest stuff - it is only two lines, and now phrased in a general, NPOV manner. Smeelgova 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I continue to disagree. The lead needs to summarize the article. You are giving undue weight to these accusations. Why don't you "write for the enemy" and add the rebuttals by Melton, instead? (source provided in to do list) I will be busy today so will not be able to edit until late evening. Happy editing.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I will try to get to adding the rebuttals from Melton in the lead and in the article. Smeelgova 17:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I also must admit, that I find Smeelgova's attempts to discredit this person by means of mentioning the "dracula" thing in the lead, to be peculiar and not well intended. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I must admit, that I find your mention of me specifically in this talk page in this manner to be highly inappropriate. Evidently Melton is very proud of his Dracula work, and does not mind being cited for it, he has placed it all over the web. The fact that he is the president of the society is very relevant. Smeelgova 17:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Violation of WP:ATT#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources

quote from "Finding Englightenment" may violate "it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject" from WP:ATT#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources

"My encounter with many Evangelical Christians helped shape my life's work. However, over the years I have been mostly disappointed with the Christian writing in this area. Instead of attempting to understand the teachings of a group, too frequently writers only compared quotes from the group's literature with biblical passages, both often out of context."

Andries 09:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Though Melton is a Christian, I think his writings tend to be anti-Christian counter cult writings, because of what he sees as distortions and caricatures by Christian countercultist writings. Andries 10:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I see what you mean - the article mentions that he is a critic of the CC movement - and although this doesn't rule out that he is part of it - it does make it less likely that he is part of it. Sfacets 12:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonestown is not a cult, is a cult (depending the purpose)

"The tragedy at Jonestown ... in spite of having little relationship to nonconventional religions in general, was transformed by the anti-cult movement and the media into the definitive cult horror story." (Chicago Tribune, 25.11.1988)

"The People's Temple was a congregation in a Christian denomination recognized by the National Council of Churches," he said. "This wasn't a cult. This was a respectable, mainline Christian group." (Milwaukee Journal, 3.12.1988)

"Jones became a cult leader and the Peoples Temple became a cult, literally overnight. And what was forgotten was that this was actually a church in a mainstream religion.... He was about as mainstream as you could get." (The Sacramento Bee, 15.11.1998)

"The first was Jonestown. While the Peoples Temple had nothing to do with New Religions, within hours of the deaths in Guyana, it had been labeled a cult" (Self-consciousness in the Study of New Religions, A talk given at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Ministries to New Religions held at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky February 22-23, 2002 - cornerstonemag.com)

J. Gordon Melton, of the Santa Barbara-based Institute for the Study of American Religion, was one of the most persuasive witnesses in the Pierce County case, according to Kaukl. "He said that if you look at the earmarks of a cult, the leader having complete control, like Jim Jones did at Jonestown, you don't see that out there" at the Ramtha school, Kaukl said. "You do see people who are very taken by her (Knight), but that doesn't mean she's wrapped them up in a mental straightjacket," Kaukl said. (The Olympian, January 27, 2008) http://www.theolympian.com/news/v-print/story/339950.html

--Tilman (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)