Talk:Academic study of new religious movements/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Kim Knott ?

• This Kim Knott citation is somewhat lacking.

My Sweet Lord: The Hare Krishna Movement. 'Locating religion in the fabric of the secular: An experiment in two public sector organisations' (funded by AHRB, 2004-05, with Myfanwy Franks, publications forthcoming

1. First of all, there is no existing article yet on Wikipedia for Kim Knott.
2. Secondly, we have no idea from this citation as to the publication of the work, its veracity, or if it is readily available upon request.
3. Finally, "publications forthcoming", I would imagine that Wikipedia should set a standard for citable works, in that at the very least if an academic work is technically unpublished, it must be readily accessible to other academics and the public at large in order to become admissible as a valid source.

Y 22:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC).

Suggestion: Require a WP:RS cite to a published source for every entry on this list

• If you take a look at List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations, their List guideline requires at least one WP:RS for every single entry on this list, even if that information is previously given at the entry's own particular article. I think this is a great idea going forward, and if others wish to help I will also look to cite every current entry on this list. As long as the piece of work performed/written by the individual satisfies WP:RS, and was not written in lets say a media/press/news source but rather some form of academic journal, I think that is okay. I don't think we should, however, limit inclusion to studies and trials, because that might be a bit too inclusive. Rather, if you wrote an article about a "cult" or a "new religious movement", and it was published in a scientific, sociological, religious, psychological, etc. related academic journal, then that is allowable. Thoughts? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Suggestion 2: - All entries must have an article on Wikipedia to be listed here. No redlinks. I think this will just make things look nicer. Alternatively, we could just de-redlink existing entries until articles are created. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia's citation templates

• We should endeavor to make sure that all of the WP:RS sources on this list are formatted with WP:CIT, for uniformity and ease of locating the actual sources if need be at a later point in time. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  • I removed some poorly sourced, redlinked entries, and formatted the remaining cites with WP:CIT. I will wait on getting sources for some of the other entries that already have articles, until the Article deletion debate is completed. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

Sources

• Sfacets (talk · contribs) makes a very good point with the {{sources}} tag. However, there are a lot of entries here. Please give us some leeway and time to source all the entries with adequate cites, or as many as we can. After a good deal of time, if we cannot find appropriate sources/papers, etc., we can begin to remove unsourced entries. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

I'm sure most if not all have sources - my request was simply to keep with the inclusion criteria which wasn't being followed. I won't remove any because they don't have references. Sfacets 10:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will work on it over time, I as well think most have references - actually, most of the requisite references are probably stated in the articles about the individuals themselves. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

Few on this list have done empirical studies

Most have simply done a literature study. Andries (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please clarify? Cirt (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Empirical research means that you interview (ex-)members or go to cult meetings. Some on the list have not even done that, but wrote books or articles based on literature studies of empirical studies. Andries (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hrm, could we specify and maybe discuss each entry individually? Giving a particular entry and cite as an example might help set the standard in the future as well. Cirt (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
      • I suggest removing the condition "empirical" in the introduction. Andries (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        •  Done Cirt (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

How can the editors of Wikipedia distinguish between researchers who have done empirical research and who have done a literature study? I do not think that this is posssible, because it is not clear from the list of publications and often not even when you read their publications, let alone form third party reliable sources. In other words, this list becomes unmaintainable if the word "empirical" is included. Andries (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC) amended 17:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This list is for researchers

Some years ago I did extensive reading for a paper I ended up not writing about cults and brainwashing theories. I expected to find reasoned argument on both sides, and research to back up whatever claims were made. I was rather dismayed to find a high proportion of authors who were willing to make strong statements without much or any objective evidence to back up their claims. It is relatively easy to tell the difference between empirical research and a "literature study" that is not accompanied by an actual empirical research study, but to expand the meaning of "research" to include "literature studies" and try to get agreement on what qualifies as a "literature study" would be truly impossible. If an author makes one reference in an opinion piece to an empirical study, does that then qualify? If so, we still have to determine what counts as an empirical study. Changing the long-standing (and normal, in my experience) meaning of "researcher" to include those who've done a literature review but not an actual empirical study, and then making a judgment that we can agree on about what kind of literature review meets this new and novel definition of research is completely unwieldy and impossible to implement. The fact that there are a lot of people on this list who shouldn't be there, either because they are not researchers or because they are researchers of issues considered by some to be related to cults but not of cults generally or of any cult in particular, is irrelevant. Those people need to be taken off the list. I've already removed several lawyers. -DoctorW 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider somebody who is mainly involved in theory a researcher too. I do not think that any person on the list is referenced to reliable third party sources describing him as a person who did at least one empirical study on a cult or NRM. Shall I remove all persons from the list? Merely talking to members at the local branch is not a study in my view, even if the result is published in a peer reviewed article. Long term observation and questionnaires in many branches of one movement is something that I would call an "empirical study". Andries (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article research: "Research is a human activity based on intellectual investigation and aimed at discovering, interpreting, and revising human knowledge on different aspects of the world." Andries (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I requested citations for people (Jan van der Lans, Eileen Barker, Marc Galanter) whom I believe performed empirical studies but for whom no third-parrty reliable sources were given. These should be the easiest to provide citations for. The rest is more difficult and I deleted them. Andries (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A good reference means one or more third party reputable source that state that (according to the explicit inclusion criteria)

1. this particular person has conducted an empirical study i.e. many interviews (ex-)members in e.g. a questionnaire or observations over a longer period of time on several local groups of a larger religious group

2. this particular person has has published the results in a scholarly or scientify magazine or book published by an academic publisher

3. is notable because of 1. and 2.

4. and that the religious group must be classiffied as a cult or new religious movement

As far as I can see, no person on the list has a reference for all these four criteria. In other words the list is empty. Andries (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference we need is the researcher's empirical study being published in a peer-reviewed journal or academic book, not someone stating that they are a researcher. Some candidates will of course be debatable. Margaret Singer wrote a book that is clearly not academic called Cults in Our Midst (which has been critiqued as "alarmist" and "often tabloidesque"). She is clearly on the extreme wing of the anti-cultusts. On the other side there is Frederick Sontag, who conducted an in-depth empirical study for 11 months on the Unification Church, but has been criticized as too sympathetic. It was published in a book by the Methodist publisher Abingdon Press, which asked him to do the study in the first place. These would seem to be borderline cases. -DoctorW 08:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that professional psychologists and counselors who work with ex-members, sometimes in a role as an exit-counselor were appropriate for this list if they were notable in their capacity as such. Hassan, Ross, Abramowitz are not conducting university research, but they are frequently quoted in reliable newspapers and I believe occasionally referenced in published literature. In any event, they are notable in the cult field and should be included on a list somewhere if not precisely here. 71.224.204.226 (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, I just don't see how Wikipedia can have a category explicitly called "Category:Researchers_of_cults_and_new_religious_movements", with 78 entries, including predominantly the names of researchers, and have under 10 appear on this list. I think this list should be inclusive and annotated (i.e. for "peer-reviewed" studies or whatever criterion you were interested it). But how can you exclude this many people actively involved in reading, writing, speaking, and doing about cults/nrms? 71.224.206.164 (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Added sourced entries

Restored sourced entries from a prior version of the page [1]. Every single entry on the list now has an accompanying citation. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Reformatted

Reformatted, to wikitable sortable format structure. [2]. Cirt (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for additions

Some of the people on the list are questionable; perhaps some of them should be discussed. Getting an opinion piece published does not make one a "researcher", which is what this list is for. I'm not sure why Eileen Barker was removed; she is a well-respected researcher and conducted a major empirical study, which was cited. Also notably absent are major names such as David G. Bromley, Anson Shupe, Larry Shinn, J. Gordon Melton, Jeffrey K. Hadden, and perhaps Massimo Introvigne (I know less about his work). I would suggest adding these names. Sources are easy to find on their respective Wikipedia article pages. I would also suggest that other sources be found for most of those who are cited using publications of the International Cultic Studies Association (such as the Cultic Studies Journal). Its predecessor was once the premier anti-cult activism organization in the U.S., and its journal is not regarded as unbiased or academically strong. If the article referenced is clearly a reasonable, scientifically sound empirical study, we should retain it, but some of the citations are mere opinion pieces, and these should certainly be dropped in favor of a more reputable publication. Other citations should also be replaced with better ones, for example, the citation for Bill Goldberg (social worker) is "Cults on Campus: How Can You Help?", which obviously falls short of establishing Goldberg as a researcher. -DoctorW 06:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears DoctorW (talk · contribs) removed some entries based on personal opinion, and added Barker, which is of the same caliber as those that were removed. Let's keep this to a broad-based standard for inclusion, so as to avoid squabbles over which POV researcher is preferable. Cirt (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The statements above by DoctorW (talk · contribs) about Cultic Studies Journal are also horribly POV, biased, and patently false. The researcher that DoctorW holds up in such high regard, Eileen Barker, happens to sit on the Editorial Board of the Cultic Studies Journal. Cirt (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: As suggested above by DoctorW (talk · contribs), I have performed some research, and added in sourced entries for those recommended by DoctorW: David G. Bromley, Anson Shupe, Larry Shinn, J. Gordon Melton, Jeffrey K. Hadden. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Standards for inclusion

What are the standards for inclusion on this list? Shouldn't they be stated clearly at the top of the article? I noticed that Steven Hassan was included. He is not a researcher. He has no training in research methods. He is an anti-cult activist, and doesn't pretend to be neutral. I think there may be others on the list who should also be removed. Without standards, it's hard to decide. Research involves scientific controls and specific methods to ensure objective, unbiased outcomes, and normally requires graduate training. The standards should not allow just any critic or apologist who did a little bit of reading and then wrote about their opinions to be called a "researcher." 131.158.237.205 (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not unilaterally remove entries from this list page. The standards for inclusion are published work on the subject matter in a peer reviewed publication. -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Doubled time period, for future archiving

Note: I doubled the time period, for future archiving, to an extended period of time for subsequent discussions. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• This is a good idea, but keep in mind that discussions on these lesser-traffic articles will go very slowly, sometimes going for months before the discussions are noticed, much less continued. Better to leave discussions up until they seem to have a real resolution before archiving them. It's not like the page has a hard limit on number of characters or anything like that. Whateley23 (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Nod, can always extend the archiving again in the future. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Objective criteria for entries

Following on the discussion immediately above about standards for inclusion, I agree that the standards need to be clarified. Since Cirt insists on deleting my last comment from the active discussion page (sending it back to the archive, on the grounds that it is "stale" because it was made several months ago), I will re-post it here:

Some of the people on the list are questionable; perhaps some of them should be discussed. Getting an opinion piece published does not make one a "researcher", which is what this list is for. I'm not sure why Eileen Barker was removed; she is a well-respected researcher and conducted a major empirical study, which was cited. Also notably absent are major names such as David G. Bromley, Anson Shupe, Larry Shinn, J. Gordon Melton, Jeffrey K. Hadden, and perhaps Massimo Introvigne (I know less about his work). I would suggest adding these names. Sources are easy to find on their respective Wikipedia article pages. I would also suggest that other sources be found for most of those who are cited using publications of the International Cultic Studies Association (such as the Cultic Studies Journal). Its predecessor was once the premier anti-cult activism organization in the U.S., and its journal is not regarded as unbiased or academically strong. If the article referenced is clearly a reasonable, scientifically sound empirical study, we should retain it, but some of the citations are mere opinion pieces, and these should certainly be dropped in favor of a more reputable publication. Other citations should also be replaced with better ones, for example, the citation for Bill Goldberg (social worker) is "Cults on Campus: How Can You Help?", which obviously falls short of establishing Goldberg as a researcher. -DoctorW 06:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably the Cultic Studies Journal wants to clean up its act and become more reputable. Perhaps it has changed a lot in the last 10 years; I wouldn't know.

The first standard for inclusion on this list is that the person be a researcher. The second is publication about that specific research study in a peer-reviewed journal or academic book. Steven Hassan fails on both counts. But Cirt writes:

"DoctorW removed some entries [two, in fact: Hassan and Bonewits] based on personal opinion, and added Barker, which is of the same caliber as those that were removed."

I removed those two people because they do not come close to meeting the objective criteria. Ironically, these two write about their opinions without doing any research. Hassan does not even have any background or training in research, as pointed out above.

Most interestingly, Cirt believes that Hassan is of the same caliber as a researcher as Barker.

Perhaps there should be another list for authors who write about cults, but who are not researchers. Or, since many of them are anti-cult activists, a list for that. But let's not denigrate the good name and dedication of researchers by making the title meaningless. -DoctorW 01:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Cultic Studies Journal is a reputable publication. The very scholar that User:DoctorW writes positively about above, Eileen Barker, is a member of the editorial review board of the Cultic Studies Journal. The tone of the commentary by User:DoctorW is a bit over the top and unnecessary, as explained with this one example regarding double-standards related to Cultic Studies Journal. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to add - in my view Barker is among the leading experts on the sociology of New Religious Movements whereas Hassan is an anti-cult lobbyist relying on outdated theories. But with the current inclusion criteria it seems difficult to argue that he shouldn't be included. ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the general viewpoint held by many cult members regarding Hassan - who do not appreciate the light shed by his research and writings. But, that is only a personal opinion and viewpoint. It also does not address the double-standard pointed out, with regards to the POV interpretation of Cultic Studies Journal by User:DoctorW. Now we also have User:Maunus praising Eileen Barker, who, again, is on the editorial review board of, Cultic Studies Journal. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for painting me as "a cult member", would you like to elaborate on that or do you just throw around ad hominem arguments and assumptions of bad faith whenever someone disagrees with you? It happens to be a viewpoint that can be sourced to quite a number of actual academic experts on the sociology of religion that Singer's theories and the way they are used by deprogrammers is thoroughly unsupported and unscientific. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Was not my intention. Merely pointing out it is the same POV. -- Cirt (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also the pov of the American Psychological Association. Association fallacy.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need take Cirt's statement as personally applying to you, as it certainly can be read as a more general truth (that's the way I read it). There is, and always will be, a range of "theories" in scholarship. To paint one as "outdated" or "unsupported" is to ignore how quickly consensus (where it can be found at all) changes. Today's theory du jour is tomorrow's "outdated" and yesterday's "unsupported" can come around again as tomorrow's popular consensus. I suspect even Hassan has changed over the years. Regardless, Hassan certainly fits the criteria for this list, whether or not you agree with him or his views. • Astynax ^talk 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Astynax. -- Cirt (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please beware of canvassing by DoctorW (talk · contribs) with regards to this article. These multiple user talk page postings [3] [4] [5], are most certainly not "Neutrally worded notifications". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of the guideline Wikipedia:Canvassing (or that Cirt might be stalking me). I did not think it was inappropriate to express my observations frankly about what's happening to this article and ask for input from 3 editors who I believe to be level-headed and intelligent. I do admit, however, that this is a clever way for Cirt to deflect attention away from his own behavior; perhaps he would like to put the quality of this article first instead of spending so much energy being contentious. -DoctorW 03:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:DoctorW posted to the user talk pages, "An editor who may not know much about the topic seems to have taken "ownership" of the article and is ignoring criteria for inclusion that have been in place for years." This is indeed a rather blatant attempt at poisoning the well of the discussion, even before the users canvassed by User:DoctorW had looked at the page or its discussion page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the notification itself was not correctly worded and does run afoul of WP:CANVASS. However being a member of WP:NRM I find it naturally that I be notified of discussions about NRM related subjects, and natural that I chip in with my view point.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, then in that case you could have been notified with a neutrally worded message, in one central location, not a POV-pushing post to a user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability of entries

Only notable entries should be added to this list. People listed on this page should all have existing Wikipedia articles. -- Cirt (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed some non-notable redlinked entries. Of course, they could be added back, if they have existing Wikipedia articles. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, above you stated that "The standards for inclusion are published work on the subject matter in a peer reviewed publication", a criterion which I think all the people you deleted (Peter B. Clarke, Andreas Grünschloss, Lorne L. Dawson and Gerald Willms) easily meet. I'll create BLPs for those that qualify, but we need to make up our mind here what the standards for inclusion actually are. Their having a Wikipedia biography is, I think, putting the cart before the horse. --JN466 21:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is in addition to having a Wikipedia article as a requirement, prior to being included on this page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a note to the NRM project's talk page; perhaps we can get some other editors to weigh in. Personally, I think peer-reviewed publications speak for themselves, regardless of whether we have written a BLP on them yet or not, or indeed whether they qualify under WP:PROF or not. Cheers, --JN466 21:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Someone could have published and yet not be independently notable themselves enough for an article on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. We do not avoid mention of all people in our articles who are not notable enough for their own entry, if they are otherwise within the scope of the article. If someone has published several dozen peer-reviewed studies, that makes them a researcher in the field, whether they qualify under WP:PROF for a BLP of their own or not. --JN466 02:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've started basic BLPs for Peter B. Clarke, Andreas Grünschloß, Lorne L. Dawson and James A. Beckford. I'll add these to the list in a day or two, unless I hear from you. --JN466 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Slashes in fields

Let us please avoid slash / in the Field entry. If an individual received their Ph.D. in sociology, then it should say sociology. If they received their degree in religious studies, it should say religious studies. -- Cirt (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I follow your line of thought but i see issues, for example Susan J. Palmer got here PHD in Sociology but teaches in the Religion Department or Massimo Introvigne who has Juris Doctorate (or Italian Equivalent) but is by all mean a Sociologist in this field of NRM. So not allowing the slash seems to complicate rather than simplify thingsWeaponbb7 (talk)

The problem is that many of the people here are sociologists of religion. It depends on the vagaries of the university with which they are affiliated whether they work in a Department of Religious Studies, or a Department of Sociology. It is quite possible for someone to have qualified as a sociologist of religion, but then to hold a chair of religious studies, and then move to another university where they hold a chair in the social sciences department. I agree it's messy, but I don't see an elegant solution. --JN466 02:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

For those where there is truly more than one discipline, how about using a line break and listing the secondary focus beneath? I don't like slashes, either. For one thing, they make the column unnecessarily wider (at least in my browser). The new field for notes means there is more vertical space available to use if needed. But I would think that most would be noted more for their work in one area than others. • Astynax ^talk 02:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines for Inclusion

Other than the Usual caveats of What is a NRM or Cult i think most of this should be relatively easy Draft Proposal:

• Published at least 3 articles in the field or at least 1 well received theoretical work in the field
• Attacked as a "Cult apologist" (usually a good indication that one is interested in a research and not screaming evil cult)

any thoughts? Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No. That seems incredibly POV, especially the second part. -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We have all have our own POV, perhaps you are right Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

any other Criteria you can think of? Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Description as researcher or performed study of cults or new religious movements, by independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh Yes, the building blocks of Wiki, WP:RS and WP:V, I say we try and limit it too Scholarly Sources as the media is legendary for defining "Expert" something totally different from what Academia would call expert. This Will substantially improve the quality rather than a Resume Posting place. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Something like "Published at least 3 peer-reviewed journal articles and/or articles included in a reputable scholarly work, or at least 1 well received book in the field" might work, perhaps. --JN466 02:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep it simple. Described as a researcher by at least two independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Professors and sociologists are rarely described as "researchers"; they are more commonly called scholars, professors, sociologists, scientists etc. who have published a study, or simply named and their work referenced. --JN466 03:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be okay too. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

:) --JN466 03:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Getting an opinion piece published does not make one a "researcher". Being called a researcher by a friend, sympathizer, or sloppy writer doesn't either. The first requirement must necessarily be that the person is actually a researcher according to the normal academic definition, not according to some convoluted definition that contradicts the normal one. -DoctorW 01:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The standard on Wikipedia is WP:RS and WP:V, regardless of your personal stated POV opinions about sources, "Being called a researcher by a friend, sympathizer, or sloppy writer doesn't either. The first requirement must necessarily be that the person is actually a researcher according to the normal academic definition, not according to some convoluted definition that contradicts the normal one." -- without anything to back up your POV claims. -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Biased list

Why is this list tilted so heavily toward the anti-cult perspective? A number of anti-cult authors are really questionable. The most ludicrous inclusion is Steven Hassan, who is not a researcher by any stretch of the imagination. He doesn't even have any graduate training in research methods (No PhD)! You wouldn't publish a list of current doctors in an encyclopedia and include someone who doesn't even have a medical degree. Steven Hassan is a counselor and a polemicist, and doesn't even pretend himself to be an unbiased scientist. It's a disgrace to Wikipedia that he would be on this list, and frankly, seeing it here is discouraging. I could try to be charitable and assume the person who added him to the list doesn't know what a researcher is, but from the look of the list overall I have to conclude that it's just bias pure and simple.

DoctorW is obviously correct and the last comment by Cirt doesn't even make any sense. 207.98.198.13 (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to add more names then that'd be great. But deleting sourced material isn't so helpful.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break. The "source" doesn't indicate in any way that he is a researcher or has ever done research. It says that he created his own counseling method. If I remove a deep splinter requiring an incision, that doesn't make me a surgeon. First you have to have a medical degree, then you have to actually do surgeries. A researcher has to do research studies (at least one!) with proper controls and methodology according to the standards of the field. That methodology must first be learned, which normally takes place during a PhD course of study. This of course is perfectly obvious to anyone actually in these fields. 207.98.198.13 (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The entry is backed up to WP:RS sources that satisfy WP:V. However, will additinoally provide some more sources for this entry. -- Cirt (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The 2 sources (one is a newsletter) say he created a method of counseling. He is not a researcher (or even close), and the sources certainly DON'T satisfy WP:V that he is a researcher. 131.118.229.5 (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The biographical article about him doesn't call him a researcher either. He is a mental heath counselor. He doesn't seem to have any peer reviewed publications what so ever - that does sort of tend to be the gold standard for researcher status in western academia.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, I was looking through the Archives and because I thought we agreed on the PHD limitation but it seems that we made no such provision. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither reference is trivial. The "newsletter" is a publication of a respected organization, itself often cited in the sociological and religious studies literature, and reprints a conference paper. Psychology of Terrorism: Theoretical Understandings and Perspectives cited in fn 68 both cites his research in 2 instances and explicitly notes his work's basis in "theory and research." It is a well-respected series from a reliable academic publisher. Cirt offered to provide more sources if necessary. What would be biased and PoV is the suggestion to limit the list based upon some arbitrary determination of whether a given researcher is or is not "heavily toward the anti-cult perspective". One needn't agree with the validity of Hassan's (or any other researher's) views, but he certainly fits the criteria. • Astynax ^talk 22:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree we can't limit some one from being here simply because of WP:IDONTLIKE, However Maunus makes a good point of lack of PR publications is worrysome. I personally had not noticed Hassan name listed here before though the edit history indicates its been here for a while. Which and the PHD thing is significant in IMO as well so the question must be asked should we raise the bar slightly to limit it to PHDs and similar qualifications? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This guy's work is cited all over the place in NRM literature. Some use his work as support, some as examples with which they disagree. A PhD does not a "researcher" make. Nor does every "researcher" accepted and cited by the academic community publish extensively in PR journals. Given that readers interested in a "List of cult and new religious movement researchers" have a good possibility of having come across Hassan's name (and may even be searching for it), it belongs here for that reason. It also meets the current criteria. The criteria might be made more restrictive, but I would argue that it would make for a much less useful list—and there are other names here which might also be swept away with such constrictive standards. • Astynax ^talk 23:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, we should give as much due weight as there credentials and reputations allow them. I will move with consensus which every way it swings. I am interested to see with what Cirt and JN466 have to say both of whom I am surprised have not shown up yet. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Another approach would be to change the article title to something other than "researcher" (researcher at the very least requires that one do research - I haven't seen any source describe Hassan's work as research - not the biographical article here or even his own website). Maybe "scholar", "writer", "debater" or some such would better capture the scope that the article's main contributors want.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, added additional info and sources [6]. Please note the source, present before these additions, which states Hassan, "bases his counseling of voluntary cultists on theory and research. To combat destructive mind control, he has developed the Strategic Interaction Approach. This approach is designed to free the cult member from the group's control over his or her life." (emphasis added). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say that he bases it on research he has done himself.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This, combined with the other sources cited, is more than sufficient for inclusion on this list page. -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition, and I think I'm recalling correctly, the pages preceding the page cited give an account of him conducting research. • Astynax ^talk 02:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Odes the label "expert" necessarily imply research? We could also change the title to lIst of "cult experts" that would seem pretty inclusive as we could include everyone who can be shown by sources to have dealt extensively with the topic. I don't know why we are so in love with the researcher word which we apparently don't want to give any kind of operational definition.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

How would the inclusion criteria change, with such a change in title? -- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It would change in that then authors or other people with expert status within the field could be included without a huge discussion of whether they are reserachers and without having to try to describe their work necessarily as research. I would for example not object to including Hassan as a cult expert, but I disagree that any of the quotes you have mustered show him to be a researcher. To me researcher is a strict definition that includes people who do scientific research in an academic setting - expert isn't.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

, Hassan Is not even that he has a Me.d From an alleged Dimploma Mill, As i have said I think we should apply the PHD standard should be applyied here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I would not be opposed to the recommendation for name-change, as suggested by Maunus (talk · contribs), above. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think Hassan is cited often enough by scholars to qualify. If he doesn't have qualifications, we can mention that. Here is a book that includes him among scholars who are "cult bashers". His writing is part of the landscape.
• I oppose a name change from "researchers" to "experts". Doing this will just open the floodgates to include a lot of untrained and unpublished anti-cult activists. This would turn this article into something completely different, and we'd end up with people like Andreas Heldal-Lund and Tilman Hausherr included along with genuine scholars. --JN466 12:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. -- Cirt (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, added info, cite, to entry, Hassan, from book by Beckford and Walliss, 2006. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree "expert" is way to loose and to me researcher is only a slight improvement over that. I was thinking of a Term more like "Scholar" or "Academic" as it would cut some the rift raft. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Scholar" might be something that could work well. -- Cirt (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how scholar would include Hassan either - scholar usually implies book related theoretical research not the kind of hands on approach Hassan stands for. I don't think councellors would usually qualify as scholars - not even if they write books about their conceling experiences , in that case Dr. Phil would be a scholar - I don't think he is - and he even hasa PhD.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I prefer the status quo with "researchers", which is biased towards notable authors whose publications or "research results" are part of the scholarly discourse (which Hassan's are).

I think on the whole, the list is okay as it stands, but if there are any other problematic entries in the list, we can discuss them. (Which ones were you thinking of?)

A suggestion though: Hassan's entry has become rather long now, in response to the challenges of his inclusion, with new sources justifying his presence here added. If we can agree here on this talk page that Hassan's inclusion is okay, perhaps his entry could be reduced in size again in a few days to something more in line with the other entries, just keeping the most essential points. Any sources presently included here that aren't used in his BLP yet could be transferred there, so the work is not wasted. --JN466 23:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to eventually move some of the entry over to Hassan's article. I approach this list from the point of a reader searching for a name I've come across but have forgotten, or someone actually looking for a list for some project. From that perspective, I don't really care what are the "qualifications" the editors have imposed (and I'd argue that WE don't get to make that determination, WE just repeat sources). All I want is to find the list of people involved in the NRM field as a starting-off point for either jarring my memory or finding my jumping-off point for further research. The fine-points of what constitutes a "scholar" or "researcher" or whatever, are going to be lost on the average visitor, and being overly restrictive is going to cause more than just Hassan to be cut from the list—making it less useful. • Astynax ^talk 02:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not think Hassan's entry should be trimmed, especially in light of all of this talk page discussion about this very issue, above. Users keep trying to argue different reasons to get his entry removed, it is as if they are actually arguing per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When one argument pops up, WP:RS secondary sources are provided. Then, another new argument is made to remove the entry for Hassan. Then, secondary sources are given that state that Hassan is a quote, "scholar" on the subject. Then, this is now not enough. This is getting quite silly. It is obvious that certain users are simply dissatisfied with a particular entry, and repeatedly now trying multiple different arguments and tactics in order to get one specific entry removed. -- Cirt (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I take your point that the issue may well crop up again, leading to a repeat of the task of retrieving the references (no guarantee that another editor having to do this will check the Hassan article before searching). So do keep at least the references here. My main concern is that the amount of text inflates the list and unduly gives the impression that he is a larger figure than some of the others on the list which don't get as much detail. Perhaps we could simply move some of the quotations into an Endnotes section so they stay on the same page?

I'm going to be bold and try that, just to illustrate how it might work for Hassan, and possibly others in future. Feel free to revert or change the edit if it doesn't seem to be a good middle ground. It is just a ham-handed way to show what I mean. Alternatively, I suppose the quotations might be placed into the footnotes themselves, though I personally find that unappealing—or perhaps the list could be restructured to roll up the details (I don't know whether that is frowned upon, is x-browser friendly, or even whether it would work at all in this type list)? • Astynax ^talk 09:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think keeping the references will help, they aren't convincing as is. If there were a consensus that it Hassan is definitely worthy of inclusion then a decision on the talk page that we could refer newbcomers to would be enough. This debate started by a new comer who came looking for researchers and found a bunch of Anticult activists. He argued that the anticult viewpoint was given undue weight - having Hassan's section int the list be three times as long as some of the most respected scholars is not going to avoid that kind of accusations of undue weight, on the contrary in fact.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this change, by Astynax (talk · contribs), thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not a matter more that a promoting fringe theories is given the same weight here as Hexham, Melton, Lewis and Shupe to name a fewThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

One could argue the opposite, that including some of the individuals you name is supporting academics taking money from cults. -- Cirt (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

One could, but one would then be promoting a fringe view oneself.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that is fact, confirmed by The Washington Post. -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Has J. Gordon Melton ever performed any "research" on cults, or simply compiled tertiary books about them? If the case is only the latter, perhaps his entry should be removed. -- Cirt (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You think we don't know of those accusations? we do. If you seriously consider them to be anything but fringe then that shows your position in relation to mainstream scholarship very clearly. As for Melton you can see his vitae here[7], it is somewhat more substantial i the research department than Hassans. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how quickly the facts about funding from cults are dismissed, this indeed shows the "fringe" views. -- Cirt (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's take Hassan completely out of the argument for just a moment. Let's suppose that it was Bryan R. Wilson's credentials being challenged as lacking and his views labeled as "fringe" (and, yes, that has been done). Let's even say he had received lecture and other fees from various groups and was an indefatiguable self-promoter to the detriment of his field. Let's go even further and throw out the wild accusation that he had been a constant advocate of burning alive all children of NRM members. Let's accept that there are many such arguments and observation. Does Wilson belong on this list? YES. None of the above is relevant. He is often cited in the literature, his research is referred to in reliable sources, his comments as an expert in facets of the field are brought to bear (even in opposition to his positions), etc. WE—not even a consensus of WE—do not change policy, and our opinions of Wilson's qualifications or significance should not come into play. We are not sitting as judges of the work or credentials of anyone on the list (I disagree with many on the list). What matters is that sources say he belongs on this list. And if Wilson's inclusion on the list is challenged, then it is appropriate to add sources in response. Neither Wilson, nor the references themselves are required to be NPoV (a completely impossible standard). Not every editor is going to go through talk page archives—or even go to the talk page at all—before blanking information on bases similar to those that have been raised here. Citations within the article emphasize that WP:V policy has been, and must be followed. Now back to Hassan: I completely understand that some editors find Hassan and/or his work to be objectionable, think he is unqualified, etc. I'm saying that, while I respect your views, they are beside the point as to his inclusion on this list. According to the criteria being aired, there are other notable people on the list who would be dropped, and (again) that makes for a list less useful for visitors. • Astynax ^talk 18:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Astynax (talk · contribs), very well stated. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Staying at the general level - the problem with Astynax criterion is that it is too flexible (how do we determine if some selfproclaimed expert is cited often enough?) and that that it makes it nearly impossible to manage a list in a way so that it lives up to its title (how many cites by actual researchers do you need before you become a researcher by association?).·Maunus·ƛ· 18:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We fortunatley have only three of those on the list right now by my count I have addressed them below as I think PHD/MD/Juris D or other equivalent seems like reasonable threshold. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Two citations from WP:RS secondary sources, is a good standard. -- Cirt (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The NPOV tag was added [8] by Maunus (talk · contribs), despite agreement above from four editors (myself, Will Beback (talk · contribs), Jayen466 (talk · contribs), and Astynax (talk · contribs)) that inclusion of the Hassan entry on the list is appropriate. Advocating removal of the entry is a minority fringe viewpoint, and the NPOV tag should be removed from the top of the list page. -- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a situation where four editors argue against four others (Resident Anthropologist, DoctorW, Myself and two IP's that are probably the same person) can be described as "agreement". ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, indeed it is difficult to assess when your arguments are continually either dismissed as factually inaccurate, and/or rapidly addressed by addition of WP:RS sources that exactly meet the demands being requested by those users. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree we arent at the need for a NPOV tag quite yet as it still seems like we can be civil. Maurice K. Temerlin Bill Goldberg (social worker),Steve Hassan, Carol Giambalvo, and Isaac Bonewits should all probably be taken off the list. Especially Bonewits who seems to be a Neo-pagan druid author rather than any credentials as a researcher. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Will be easier to discuss objections as they come up, individually. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

They just came up.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Let us discuss one at a time, please, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I just struck Maurice K. Temerlin as it seems he does hold a Relevant PHD, The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Two sections?

One idea we could explore would be to separate the academic researchers from the non-academics. --JN466 18:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That will get too unwieldy. Best to keep it to one section, organized by field and then alphabetically, as current. -- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sort by name?

It seems to me that it might be better to sort the list by the person's name. That way it would be easier to find someone on the list. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the black up/down arrows at the top of columns, the list will sort by name in ascending/descending order (the reader may also choose to sort by field, nationality or date of birth). I suppose that might be something to mention at the top of the list if necessary. For purposes of editing and verification, however, the current grouping by field, followed by last name is useful. • Astynax ^talk 17:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Questionable people

Flo Conway seems to be a journalist and popular author, not an academic. Does she really belong on the list? Also Louis Jolyon West did not seem to specialize in the study of NRMs. His article is mainly about research in LSD. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW I also think there are some journalists who might be notable as NRM researchers, if we want to change the standards of the list to include them. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The title of the list is "researchers" not "scholars". One doesn't need academic credentials to conduct and publish research.   Will Beback  talk  18:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that there are some notable journalists that could be added. I'm not sure exactly who would be using the list. Perhaps people who want to do more research on the topic of NRMs and are looking for resources. In that case they might want to check out journalists who have done major news stories. I do agree with Kitfoxxe that Conway and West seem kind of minor. Conway wrote one book back in the 70s and West seems mainly notable (NRM-wise) for getting in a tiff with the Scientologists, his biography doesn't mention anything much in the way of doing research. Borock (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If they aren't scholars, then for the sake of notability they should be cited in scholarly publications. Most journalists work on assignment dealing with a variety of topics that only require gathering background to verify particular stories, which seldom would put them in a category of specialized researchers. Some do publish more in-depth books or serials which do indeed get cited by scholars, and I think those would be fine (backed up by a citation from an academic reference). • Astynax ^talk 08:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Astynax. It's okay to include journalists and popular authors (I remember the discussion about Hassan we had a while back), but we should restrict ourselves to those who are taken seriously in scholarly discourse and have written more than just the occasional cited article, or a book on one particular group. They should be NRM specialists; otherwise we'll end up including every journalist who has written a couple of stories about Scientology. --JN466 02:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Astynax. It's possible for someone to conduct empirical research properly without the relevant training, but if someone were to try to redefine "medical doctor" this way (no training or credentials necessary) the burden of proof would be on the person asserting that the unqualified "researcher" should be given a waiver of qualifications and added anyway.

Resident Anthropologist wrote:

"Bill Goldberg (social worker),Steve Hassan, Carol Giambalvo, and Isaac Bonewits should all probably be taken off the list. Especially Bonewits who seems to be a Neo-pagan druid author rather than any credentials as a researcher."

...but no one took action. I agree on all counts and will start the ball rolling by removing Bonewits, who is obviously not a researcher. -DoctorW 03:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No one took action because there was no consensus to exclude researchers who, while they may not be academics, are nevertheless both researchers and cited in scholarly sources. • Astynax ^talk 19:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Journalists

Two journalists who might be added are Richard Behar, who wrote a famous article for Time on Scientology, and Robert Parry who has written extensively on the Unification Church. Borock (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose adding Behar. His Time article is of course well-cited, but it's an investigative journalist's work on one particular group, and the bulk of his work is about entirely different topics. One article, however prominent and well researched, doesn't make a staff writer an NRM researcher. Parry seems to be much the same; lots of general political topics, only one of which touches upon the NRM field. --JN466 02:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)