Talk:Sociological classifications of religious movements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See talk:church-sect typology

The fact that Schnabel is Dutch is irrelevant. Andries 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The language of the writer can be seen in the citation. Andries 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Language is not the only issue, he is relatively unknown and needs that context. In any case, I do not see merit in this article as a standalone article, unless many other classifications are added. There is plently of material on the subject on Cults and New religious movements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I already added the relevant context i.e. that he is a sociologist and that his work was in Dutch. I do not understand why his nationality is important. Andries 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Because he is mostly unknown. We mention a scholar nationality in many instances, and this is one that is worthwhile mentioning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Care to give examples. Andries 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wallis' stuff needs to be moved to New religious movements where it will be a worthy addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please summarize or copy do not move. Andries 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I oppose moving, because the listed references show that these classifictions are usually treated together. Andries 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It could be merged after merging cult and new religious movement into cults and new religious movements, but this was rejected a few years back. See Talk:Cult/Archive_3#Merge_with_NRM_into_Cults_and_new_religious_movements_.3FMerging cult and new religious movement would be big and controversial undertaking because a whole set of entries would need to be merged, re-named and moved. It is in that respect like re-structuring the entries history of Pakistan/History of India/History of South Asia. I tried it but it was too difficult, too controversial, and too much work. Andries 21:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Andries, but I do not see the point of this article, when we have already articles on these subjects. Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

These classifications are usually treated together and they cannot be merged to cult or new religious movement because they use both terms. Andries 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
We also have Church-sect typology, and other similar article so I could understand the need for an article that brings it all together But it needs to become a summary article that summarizes content from existing articles on the subject and not a POV fork ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing similar in contents to this article except client cult so this article is not POV fork. Andries 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope that you can make it clear why your introduction from Church-sect typology is on-topic, because I do not see it now. Andries 21:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the section titles "cult" and "new religious movement". The sociologists did not in their definitions put emphasis on the terms "cult" and "new religious movements". Andries 22:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The templates Main article cult and Main article new religious movement falsely suggest that more about these classifications can be found at cult and new religious movements. Andries 22:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Added some sources, reorganized article as per your concerns above, fixed some ELs and added a link to Wikisource where all the docs about DIMPAC are available in full. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
why is the wikisource text of the DIMPAC relevant for this article? I do not see it. Andries 01:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Expand and rename this entry into sociological classifications of religious movements?

I propose to expand and re-name this entry into sociological classifications of religious movements. I still think that the church-sect typology is off-topic with the current title which describes the differences between cults/new religious movements versus other religious movements, such as churches, sects and denominations. Church-sect typology does not distinguish between different types of cults.Andries 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)amended 21:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)~

Sure, that would work and make the article more interesting and useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Saliba's view should go

The view that he presents is not a sociological view on the matter. Hence it is off topic in this article. Andries 10:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I re-read it and I admit that it on topic. Andries 10:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery cults why is this on topic

I fail to see how the section on mystery cults is part of the sociological classifications of religious movements. I never saw that in any sociology book or book about the sociology of religion. Andries 10:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I fail to see why the text in this article needs to be separate from Church-sect typology. Will merge in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Because a classification of cults and NRMs is not part of the church-sect typology. Merge the other way would be a reasonable possibility though. Andries (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Not sure about Wallis' distinction between sects and cults

I am not sure whether Roy Wallis distinction between sects and cults is part of the church sect typology. I think not and that it grew out of his criticism that the church sect typology is not a universal approach but highly dependent on the culture of the society in question. Andries (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cults

I fail to see why Mormons are the only group picked on as a cult. Zarahemlite (talk) 23 May 2008