Talk:New religious movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

==See also== *[[Cult]] *[[Anti-cult movement]] *[[List of controversial new religious movements]] ==External links== * http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ Apologetics Index: research resources on cults, sects, and related issues. The publisher operates from an evangelical Christian point of view, but the site links to and presents a variety of viewpoints. * http://www.religionnewsblog.com ReligionNewsBlog.com Current news articles about religious cults, sects, and related issues. * http://www.skepsis.nl/onlinetexts.html Online texts about NRMs, collected by the Dutch organization of skeptics *[http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/ Cult Awareness Network - a website of the Foundation for Religious Freedom]. See also [[Cult Awareness Network]] [[de:Neue Religiöse Bewegung]] [[fr:Nouveaux mouvements religieux]] [[pl:Nowe ruchy religijne]] [[ja:新宗教]] [[Category:New religious movements]] [[Category:Religion]] ---- ''Cut and paste from old version of [[cult]] which I renamed to [[destructive cult]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|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. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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].

[edit] 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].

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Automated peer review

[edit] (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)

[edit] (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)