Talk:New England Institute of Religious Research/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removed info not supported by cited source

• "Bob Pardon to the Rescue". The Boston Phoenix. Retrieved 2009-10-29.

Recent changes to the article do not appear to be supported by this given source. Cirt (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[1] = Info not supported by cited source was added back again by Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs), I then left a message at the user's talk page [2]. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cirt i commend you for trying to keep the page clean of misinformation, Any page that is about NRM requires constant vigilance. as to my particular criticism on whether it is a research group or anti-cult ministry, i understand you concern with me labeling this group to discredit it. however hear is the quote "Andrew Walsh, a religious historian at Trinity College in Hartford, finds this troubling. "I’m by no means an expert on cults," Walsh says. "I wouldn’t go around saying that what Robert Pardon does is bad for people. But what’s interesting to me is that he got an awful lot of mileage out of being a ‘cult expert’ while not being open about that fact that he is religious himself. His group sounds academic and nonprofit-y, and he presents it that way because if he called it the Anti-Cult Ministry, people wouldn’t call him, judges wouldn’t call him. It seemed to me that he positioned himself as a kind of free agent able to comment objectively about the [Attleboro] case, and journalists just ate that up and gave him oceans of ink without saying who he was." i also intend to use an article from the Academic Journal for additional criticism "Religion in the News" http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol3No3/cult_fighting.htm i also intend to find the source you used yourself as a source: Eileen, McNamara (February 3, 2002). "Investigator on a Mission". The Boston Globe (Globe Newspaper Company): p. B1. the issue i find with this page is its seems unbalanced i am attempting to add balance currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs)

Again - source does not support the changes you made. And then you also made changes further down the page of the article not supported by any sources. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

as to my particular criticism on whether it is a research group or anti-cult ministry, i understand you concern with me labeling this group to discredit it. = this admission by Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) is particularly troubling. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

entirely false totally taken out of context, all i meant was i understand that Cirt beleives me to be trying to discredit the Neirr, i am merely using that states that the gorup masquerades as non-profit while actually ministering to these "brainwashed" indivisuals. To call it a research group is laughable this guy attacks the unitarians as a cult mormons and Baha'i. the board of the orginzation consists of nearly entirley Reverends along with a therapist and lawyer hardly academic Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is not here for you to present your personal opinion of what you think of the organization. Cirt (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I realize that the creator of this entry has done a meticulous job of using every reference mentioning this organization but I wonder if these sources help the article meet the following criteria:

• An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

In other words is coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources more than incidental? I'm not sure either way and am not saying it isn't but it is a good question to answer at the outset. If so would it be possible to list a couple of those so that one doesn't have to slog through every one of them to find this out. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think this has been made quite obvious by the referencing already present in the article, thanks. Cirt (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, it is not obvious at all which reliable, independent secondary sources have more than incidental mention. If you don't want to help I'll just slog through them myself, but you could make it much easier on me if you just give me a couple. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is obvious from the names of the articles that the organization is itself the focus of multiple reliable independent secondary sources. And I don't see why you need to feel you have to "slog" through all the sources, unless for some reason you feel you do not wish for this article to exist, which is quite odd even in the face of the obvious source coverage. Cirt (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Exsqueeze me? Insinuate much? You mean these which appear to be about the retreat facility? 1) "A New Refuge for Walkaways Center to Aid Ex-Members of Cults" and 2) "Helping People Live Cult-Free Lives - Lakeville Facility Gives Clients the Tools to Readjust to Society". Thanks I'll start there.PelleSmith (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Start" Why? Why the need for you to put in all this effort? If you really feel that you are unhappy with this article's existence, WP:AFD is that way. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I never said I was unhappy with its existence. I would suggest being a little less combative. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You started a new subsection on the talk page whose header is "Notability", that implies you feel the article is not notable, which implies you think it should be gone. Cirt (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

i Actually was reading the criteria for yesterday and was asking myself the same thing, i did presume since Cirt is Admin and received multiple barnstars i did not mention it. I frankly concur. A search of google registers hit but very little other than something along the lines of "Bob pardon of Neirr says x about group x" or on anti-cult sights use it as a reference or link to it. There is very little on the institute itself or of meadow haven; that does not sound promotional. Bob Pardon who is listed and as far as can tell is the only person there who speaks to the press has not been published except for as a far as i can tell by publications the institute itself. Calling an institute itself is also a misleading as there are as one source says only consits of two employees though another source says three. I concur both that Cirt has been very combative in any edits to this article i have made and AFD might be the way to go. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is quite odd, Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs), considering multiple sources you yourself added to this article have the subject of this article as their main focus. Cirt (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Pardon and Meadow Haven are the subjects of articles. I haven't found one about the Institute. I'm still very much so open to some direction in that area of course. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The institute is directly discussed in many of those articles. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Can you provide some textual evidence of this please? The very section about the Institute in the entry is really about Pardon and Mather. One liners from their own press releases, website, or self-descriptive statements of intent to reporters like "The organization was founded with the intention to provide 'training in ministering to those caught up in such destructive groups'", aren't above and beyond incidental mention as far as I understand it. But maybe I'm wrong.PelleSmith (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of the Four i can think of three question or outright criticize his Notability and his media recognition and Court recognition of him as a source or expert as well as indicate it is pardon and his wife on a "mission". i personally conclude that it is a nice Non-profity sounding front for these two but thats my 2centsWeaponbb7 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

POV opinion commentary

These sorts of POV opinion are best for the Commentary subsection. Cirt (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[3] = sources do not support changes. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]

It would seem from these repeated virtually identical style of edit behavior that it is a singular goal of the account Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) to change the lede definition of the organization from the NPOV "research group" to the POV-pushing "anti-cult ministry". Cirt (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Group never identifies itself as a Research Group But rather a "Mission" and uses the "Another important dimension of Institute ministry" later in the same paragraph of the Who We are section "NEIRR is deeply grateful to all those who have helped this ministry". the neutrality of the article is also in question the whole article sounds like an advertisement to me The article i used the first time i had confused as the article i just used. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Every single one of your edits appears to be with the singular intention of attempting to denigrate this existing organization, in some cases with info from dubious sources, and as shown above, in some cases with information not backed up to any sources. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, yet again having to fix some of this new material which was both not NPOV and not in accordance with the sources it purported to cite. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not try to try to "denigrate" this organization any more than i think you try to "promote" the organization by contributing only positive information. A simple google search turns up criticism or rather "outside the mainstream views" the institute holds, I have only used articles I have perceived as valid. You have cherry picked statements made on this page to try and to imply COI to discourage me to from editing the article. I have referred this mutual disagreement on the exact nature of the Institute to [Third opinion project] hopefully to try to resolve this disagreement. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you check the format of the article prior to your arrival, you will see that I actually did include negative material, for example Associated Press commentary. However, I agree that WP:3O is an appropriate way to go for now. Cirt (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you see it as criticism there are number of people who would consider it a endorsement of the organization by the AP Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on New England Institute of Religious Research/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: Please note that this opinion is only about the dispute over whether the term "research group" or "anti-cult ministry" is to be used, not about any of the other issues being discussed on this talk page. I've taken a look at the organization's web site and, frankly, it seems to me that "research group" seems to have more of a NPOV problem - as gilding the lily - than "anti-cult ministry." On its "About NEIRR" page, the organization clearly identifies itself as a ministry, and uses the phrase "such destructive groups" in reference to "cultic structures." While the organization has the word research in its title, its self-proclaimed mission encompasses far more than that and there seems to be ample evidence that there is no substantial disconnect between what the organization says on its web page that it does and what public reports say that it does. I don't find "anti-cult ministry" to be inappropriate, but let me suggest a compromise nonetheless: "New England Institute of Religious Research (NEIRR) is a ministry located in Massachusetts which provides information on controversial cultic organizations and provides training, counseling, and assistance to individuals who are involved with such groups." By avoiding "anti-" that construction avoids the implication that NEIRR is working against cults (i.e. to destroy them or put them out of existence), as opposed to existing to help individuals who may be in or dealing with a cultic group.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your 3O

I Find this an acceptable compromise. Does Cirt concur?Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"released a self-published study"

[7] = the sources confirm the prior wording. Source for this changed claim please? Cirt (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the publisher's name any where on the site! it just says he wrote it? Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See the secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[8] = please do not remove secondary sourced info and replace it with WP:OR. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotebox

The quotebox from the commentary section of this article was removed.[9] Rather than just revert, I would like to invite suggestions for a replacement quote for the quotebox that would better suit this subsection, especially from the removing editor. Cirt (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest not replacing it. Frankly I don't see the utility of such boxes on any entry, but certainly not in controversial areas. Who decides what quote goes in the quote box? Even if the subject is relatively neutral there can be no clear choice of quotes to highlight in a box.PelleSmith (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

While you may not personally appreciate the value or usefulness of quote boxes, they are commonly used. [10]. Here is a variety of examples of solid articles utilizing quote boxes: Snakes on a Plane, Oklahoma City bombing, and Republicanism in Canada. They seem to be a part of normal good practice. I again invite you to make an alternative suggestion, so that we hash things out and move forward on this point. Cirt (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

They are not widely used in the manner you are using them at all. In fact give me one similar example?PelleSmith (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that quote boxes should only be used in cases where a certain quote is generally agreed upon by the editors to be of central relevance to the topic. let's just use a normal citation here.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from book reviews about the book are of central relevance to the topic, specifically, to reception of the topic. Cirt (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

But in that case all editors would have to agree on which quotes to use. Anyway this quote sounds more like an add or a slogan. I really don't think it is either informative or relevant.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an alternative could be suggested? :) Cirt (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The alternative is a normal inline quotation as we have now.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Using a quotebox in this way, no matter what the quote says, is in no way conventional and begs for controversy between disagreeing editors.PelleSmith (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have given it some thought and I can understand how on this particular article some would see a quotebox as being difficult due to the question of which quote to highlight. Cirt (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Move/name change?

There are two relatively lengthy Globe articles on the Meadow Haven Retreat and Recovery Center run by the Institute. Within these articles there is incidental mention of the Institute itself and its other activities. There seem to be a lot of other incidental mentions of the institute as well, among which are sources about some of its most important members/founders. What do people think about moving the entry to Meadow Haven Retreat and Recovery Center and mentioning the Institute in that entry instead?PelleSmith (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

a third option maybe merging a Short one liner in "Christian counter-cult movement" rather than a full length article" Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am inviting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group in on this discussion since PelleSmith and I seem to have reached a roadblock in discourse. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Keep page where it is. It is notable both for its own institute, and its sub organization which is wholly a part of it. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cirt can you please direct me to a reliable secondary source with more than incidental mention of the Institute? Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We are going in circles now. Like I said, already present in the article. Like I said, the new sources added by Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) also show this. Cirt (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, clearly I believe these to be incidental mentions. Can you provide textual evidence from your sources that support the claim that it is more than incidental? I believe that an entry on Meadow Haven is more appropriate since along with Pardon, Meadow Haven has received more than incidental mention in reliable secondary sources. We are in fact not going in circles. I have asked for evidence of your claim and it is not being produced. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have worked very hard on researching, writing and creating this article. And I have included information directly pertinent info in this article that relates to the Meadow Haven retreat that this organization started, and to its co-founders. I see no reason why not to keep it all at the main parent article itself, there is more than enough room here for all the sub-organizations of this main one. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you've done on this entry, but wouldn't it be better to keep this information then, and to do so within our guidelines on notability? WP:ORG also states: Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story. My point is that only the retreat center and one of the organization's members seem to be "a major subject of [a] story", so why not make one of them the major subject of the article instead of an umbrella organization that has received no such coverage?PelleSmith (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it has received coverage in both capacities, and the best way to cover it as an article is to do what has already been done - give background on the parent organization, and then within this article describe its sub-organization. Cirt (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Further, subsections Research institute and Commentary are wholly appropriate here, but a sub-article devoted to just the one subsection Treatment center might not have those as applicable. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• 'Oppose Delete It is not notable Boston Globe Published the article questioning its Notability and use as Source A publication the journal Religion in the News also questioned its Notability and use as Source pointed to the self promoting website claims they hold "advance degree in their field" implying studies of NRM, Two people with Master of Divinities and person of Master's of Education are not advance fields that this group studies. this possibly violate "tabloid journalism" policy which this guy is acutely in the middle of. Bob Pardon who is listed and as far as can tell is the only person there who speaks to the press has not been published except for as a far as i can tell by publications the institute itself. this violates the police on "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This Group does not meet notability criteria in my humble opinion here are quotes of policies of wikipedia that make the sources on meadow haven Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; the meadow haven quotes are perfect examples. I reiterate this my point this Instiute is not notable. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL, first you wanted to add criticism to the article, admittedly stating above that you were labeling this group to discredit it. And now you want the article gone. Seems more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. :P Cirt (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Quit trying to Twist my statments Cirt full quote "Hello Cirt i commend you for trying to keep the page clean of misinformation, Any page that is about NRM requires constant vigilance. as to my particular criticism on whether it is a research group or anti-cult ministry, i understand your concern with me labeling this group to discredit it" Indicating my mutually understanding that articles related to NRM require vigilance to protect against vandalism or section blanking from COI party. Cases in point Scientology versus the Internet or [Prem Rawat] Cherry picking my statements to your will does not mean it is fact; i understand your frustration of having a article you seem to invested time on being completely deleted but if sources are poor above i have mentioned the suggestion above. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

With your full quote it is even more clear. You admit you came to this page in an attempt to "discredit" the organization. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

i am done arguing over it, we get you oppose it, splitting hairs over every statementent get us no where. i have stated my intent which is not what you say it is. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge into "Christian counter-cult movement Notability is insufficient, some info in the existing list there might be more appropriate Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Move/Merge all related topics Keep and improve: upon reading the article and before visiting the talk page my first thoughts were about whether it was notable. The article text does not establish why the institute is notable. The many references are not obviously scholarly and most do not obviously treat the institute rather than any of the related subjects. Now to Cirt: I have argued with you civilly elsewhere and was a little surprised at seeing your reaction here. From the very first line written by Pelle you are questioning motives instead of adressing his concerns. I know Pelle a little bit as well and I am sure he has not arrived here with any agenda other than to improve the quality of coverage of topics the scope of project New Religious Movements. I am sure the same goes for weaponbb7. Could please have a civil discussion without trying to paint ourselves and eachother into the corners now? ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge to what? Why? Cirt (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant move as per pelleSmith's suggestion.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And I maintain that would be inappropriate, as we can give a more comprehensive description of its parent organization and commentary, here, whereas the commentary info is more specifically addressed towards the parent organization, and not Meadow Haven. In a moved article, that would have to go, and there would be less sources. A move in that case would seem like a precursor step towards deletion, unfortunately. Cirt (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

that is the issue we are at the only academic thing written on this topic is Andrew Walsh's article, in which he criticizes the media or the D.A. for even paying attention to pardon and the institute. Vast majority of articles that feature Nierr do not meet wikistandard as stated above; Meadowhaven seems slightly more notable due to the two intensive articles but again not sure if two articles both written one to announce the intention to start it another to anounce the oppening five years later. Two of them mention it in passing at best. This is why noatblity comes into questionWeaponbb7 (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I am slightly in favor of keeping this article separate. One, the subject is referenced with a full entry in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions. Granted, so is virtually everything else that has ever happened in America, but it is a reference. It is also at least mentioned in Beit-Hallahmi's encyclopedia, which I don't currently have to reference, so I don't know how extensive the reference is. Also, I do question the logic of merging the parent into the child's article. In general, it makes more sense to me to merge the other way around. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it has an entry in Melton's encyclopedia makes me change my mind about notability questions. But could we please incorporate any additional information from that entry into the lead?·Maunus·ƛ· 19:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly if it has its own entry in any reliable encyclopedia it is notable under this name. I was unaware of this and the sources used to this point in the entry only give significant coverage to the treatment center and to the two prominent figures. Such a source would change everything. However, if significant coverage is given in a high quality source then it should be given due weight in entry. So far we just have the groups own self-declarations about what they do and so forth. Newspapers articles mentioning the Institute simply parrot these, and are incidental. What version of Melton's book are you using?PelleSmith (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And do you mean this book by Hallahmi? The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects, and Cults?PelleSmith (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it was the first edition of Melton, and that is the book by Beit-Hallahmi. I don't have either right now, having had to keep an appointment, but should be able to have the text of both tomorrow. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked every addition of Melton and there is definitely no separate entry for this group in any of them. The indexes are thorough and they turn up zilch. Did you mean the "New England Institute of Metaphysical Studies" (now possibly named something else)? The encyclopedia also generally covers religious groups not "research institutes" or countercult organizations. There is no topic section for "countercult" and under anti-cult there are literally a measly 2-3 entries depending on what addition you look at.PelleSmith (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I was invited here by a note on my talk page; I knew nothing about this organization before reading the article just now, and have not examined the sources closely yet. That being said, my inclination is keep the article where it is. That is the parent organization, and - per John Carter's comment - is listed in a major work on religion. The treatment center is a part of the larger institute, and as such, can be given a full treatment as part of this article. If the section on the treatment center ever grows so large that it overwhelms the rest of the article, it can be separated at that time, leaving a summary in this article on the institute. LadyofShalott 20:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest taking a closer look at the sources. The issue is that there is no significant coverage of any kind of the Institute. It is mentioned in passing with descriptive one liners in articles that are about the treatment center and/or about Pardon. Conceptually I will admit that it makes sense to keep it as it is (and following a reliable reference work would clearly be preferable regardless), but in that case I believe the entry needs some serious work. For instance we need to clearly separate content on the treatment center, on the individuals running the institute and on the "institute" as an organization. The lead could also be clearer regarding why the Institute is notable.PelleSmith (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It may also be informative to read the dispute above regarding how to describe the Institute (anti-cult ministry vs. research institute). This disagreement illustrates part of the problem. The "Institute" appears to be comprised of two or three individuals who are non-academic "cult experts" and Christian ministers. As far as I can tell they run a retreat center for ex-members and talk to the press whenever they can. The idea that they do any significant "research" seems to be a bit of a misnomer to say the least. So that's where the naming issue becomes complicated. I don't think we should simply perpetuate their self image as a research institute by using their name and then just parroting their self-description as such. What they actually do and are known for doing is what we should focus on.PelleSmith (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• The name is the name. They can call themselves whatever they like, and we should title the article accordingly. The contents of the article though should reflect what they actually do. LadyofShalott 07:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep at current name, per John Carter. This is basic logic; one does not move an article about a parent organization to one of their child projects. One has the article at the parent organization's name, with a redir from the child projects' name(s). If one of the child projects becomes too unwieldy to contain in this article, then spin it off into a child article, keeping a summary section in the main. It is absurd and illogical to speak of removing the parent article in favor of the child article. This would be similar to arguing that Charcuterie be merged into Bacon, or Noah's Ark into Searches for Noah's Ark - it simply makes no sense at all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That logic does not in fact hold true in situations with greater affinity to this one. Consider how we treat authors and their books. For instance look at the entry created by User:Cirt (and linked to in this entry) for the book Twisted Scriptures. The author is clearly not notable per WP:BIO, but at least Cirt thinks the book is notable. Information on the author was included in the entry for the book. I'm not sure myself that the book is notable in fact, but that's a different matter altogether.PelleSmith (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Books/authors are not comparable to Organizations/Projects. False analogy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The author is notable, I just haven't had time to write her article yet. Cirt (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So you claim, but the fact is that you've created an entry for a book and put the bio of the author in there. The logic you and KC are advocating here would dictate that you spin out the author's entry. If she's notable you can stubbify it and work from there.PelleSmith (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I will get to it eventually, but if you feel it is important that the article be written without delay, you can always write it yourself or add it to the List of requested articles. I'll be glad to help you with it when I have time, but right now I am working on improving this article. Cirt (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is interesting and I wish you well with that, but its basically irrelevant, sorry. This is a false analogy and holds no weight. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a false analogy because you say so? Why is it a false analogy? I do not believe it is anymore false than any of your analogies, and that's really the point. It is certainly more analogous than the relationship between a mythical boat and the search for it, or a type of cooking and a product that can be prepared in this manner. What makes these analogies particularly poor though is the fact that none of these "parent subjects" are notable for only one thing. This is where the author/book analogy is helpful. If I can find one more fitting to WP:ORG I'll be happy to supply it.PelleSmith (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you mean to ask for my reasoning? I certainly hope you didn't mean to imply I was merely tossing this in without any rationale or thought. Please try to ensure you AGF in your posts. I do not appreciate such subtle innuendo type attacks on my character.

I don't think anyone believes the Bible, for example, is non notable, yet what we know of the authors is derived from the writing itself and is largely speculative. We have an article on J, etc, but its not a bio as generally conceived. The Bible may be a special case; but what of Gilgamesh? The Laxdaela Saga? We haven't a clue who wrote the darn thing. But we always know what company or organization runs a charitable project. There is a ton of paperwork for the 503 status, for just one example. There is a clear parent/child hierarchy, which does not exist in less structured relationships. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Regarding AGF I'm unsure what you mean. You claimed my analogy was false I claimed yours was worse. How am I in breach of any guidelines you aren't in breach of? Certainly "false" is a stronger attack on my ability to reason than "worse" is on yours. I fail to see how your current example is meaningful to my analogy. We have more contemporary situations in which we know who the authors of books are. Clearly my example has nothing to do with ancient texts that have unknown authors. Of course since you bring it up lets look at the bible example. What is the parent article there? The J authors or the Bible itself? The Bible is clearly. The authors are notable for creating this text, but notable enough clearly to be discussed outside of the parent article. A vast amount of scholarship will do that to a subject.PelleSmith (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"False analogy" is a known and well-used term, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were ignorant of it. Your offense was not in objecting to my analogy, but in asking "Its wrong because you say it is?" which very strongly and clearly implies disdain; an assumption that i had no rationale and was merely trying to assert my will; and general dismissal of any reasoning I might have had. This is failure to AGF. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough regarding my use of that language and it has been stricken with my apologies. What I was trying to convey was the fact that I didn't see a rationale given just the statement, twice, that it was a false analogy. Apologies if you did in fact explain why it was a false analogy and I missed it. Please take some time to consider your own insinuations and use of language, as in the post just above this. Kettle's and pots or something. Maybe?PelleSmith (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated.[11] To what, specifically, that I said do you object? I assure you I did not intend any insult, and will be happy to explain any comments which cause you concern. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not important and I'm striking it since it is also tangential to the discussion. Can you please provide the rationale for how my analogy is a "false analogy"? Can you please also distinguish your analogies from mine based upon this rationale? I'm very happy to continue this discussion based upon my understanding of analogies and inductive reasoning more generally, but your explanation is a necessary starting point. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

NEIRR owns the retreat in a very legal and hierarchical way. There is a parent/child, owner/owned, company/product relationship. Book/author is only superficially the same. Books are sometimes works of one author, sometimes of many. Books can be famous when their author is unknown, a condition impossible for this type of legal relationship. It is possible for the retreat to change hands, to not be related at all to NEIRR; this is impossible with books, which if their author is known, is always and forever written by that author. Your analogy has no clear hierarchy; a book may make its author famous, or an author may make an otherwise nn book notable; the relationship has no clear head/body relationship and is more symbiotic than hierarchical, and may be missing altogether in cases where the author is unknown. In short, its a classic false analogy in that there are some superficial similarities, from which you appear to wish to draw the conclusion that as book/author has no hierarchy, so NEIRR/Retreat has no such hierarchy; allowing us to treat either as higher in rank, but the core differences in relationship structure renders those similarities irrelevant, and hence useless for comparison purposes, which is after all the purpose of an analogy. Unlike the book/author relationship, which may be Book->Author, Author->Book, Book (no author), Author (no book); this relationship has a clear ranking of Company->Enterprise, or NEIRR->Retreat. The retreat can never own the company, nor exist without ownership of some kind. Now I am done; if I have not explained my view sufficiently for you then I will say simply "I don't think its a good comparison" and have done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding: You seem to have missed the bacon/charcuterie relationship. Charcuterie is 'not a type of cooking. It is a method of preserving meat, primarily pork. Bacon is a type of charcuterie; so is ham. The parent/child structure is more clear when you take the trouble to at least read the lead of the articles so you are not confused about their subjects. HTH. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't miss it. Bacon is one type of product of that meat curing process.PelleSmith (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and ham is another. Allow me to rephrase: you missed the point I was trying to make. I'm not going to try to make it again; it failed to convey my point once and I don't want to waste any more time on detailed explanations of my meaning. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I screwed up bad, sorry

My profound apologies to all who were misled by my earlier statement regarding Melton. I came back to pull up the data and found I had misread it the first time. The material in question is about something else entirely. I also checked Beit-Hallahmi and found no entry there, which indicates that I added the name to my computers list as a way of referencing that the group is called something for verification if the question ever arises. categorization purposes, like I have done with a lot of other groups. I did run a database check of my own, and found Pardon quoted in a Canadian and an Australian paper as well, but in both those mentions the group was only mentioned to establish his credentials. Based on the information I have, I have to say that I myself would never have considered the group necessarily notable enough to create the article, although I think that with more work cases might be makeable for Pardon and Mather. I admit however I have not reviewed the video evidence, or the material from the conference. I personally am far less than sure that speaking at the conference is sufficient to establish notability. I note the article on the fellow who studies those who have lived to one hundred or more (I forgot the name) was earlier deleted because although his work was notable, none of the coverage was really about him per se and on that basis he wasn't notable enough. Having said all that, I imagine, although I cannot prove, that the subject is probably covered more extensively in at least one smaller local newspaper and that might establish the notability more clearly, but I can't prove that. I guess I still favor the merger of the center to this article, and think that notability might (barely) be established for the two entities as one article, but that would still be a matter of question. Sorry, everybody. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for double checking John. This of course makes me change my opinion back to what it was. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

John makes a good point that it is a bad idea to merge a parent article into a nonexistent sub article. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What about John's other good points? -- e.g. "Based on the information I have, I have to say that I myself would never have considered the group necessarily notable enough to create the article, although I think that with more work cases might be makeable for Pardon and Mather." I think you are disregarding the fact that people who have actually considered the extent and nature of the available material realize that the Institute itself is not notable.PelleSmith (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of scope for this discussion, which is about rename/merge. The appropriate venue for discussing notability is Afd. Lets settle the name without dragging in off-topic quibbles, eh? And FWIW, IMO it would be premature to nom for Afd at this juncture. The article is still being written. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not off topic. The naming issue is directly related to WP:N and WP:ORG. The Institute fails WP:ORG and the retreat center may just squeak by.PelleSmith (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If the institute is notable, and the logical structure is to describe the institute within the parent organization article, then ipso facto the organization must also be notable. You're being illogical, I'm sorry. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

When I say that the Institute fails WP:ORG I'm saying that it is not notable. It only receives incidental coverage in reliable sources -- to establish Pardon's credentials when he talks to the press about "cults" and to establish who created the retreat center. The retreat center itself has received significant coverage in two Boston Globe articles (in their metro section I believe). After realizing his mistake John Carter also suggested that the Institute is not notable, but that Pardon and Mather might be.PelleSmith (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Regarding this source -- Burchard, Elizabeth R.; Judith L. Carlone (2005). The Cult Next Door. Ace Academics. p. 349. ISBN 1576333000. Amazon claims it only has 345 pages, so how can this be on page 349? I don't have access to the book since it is not the type of source carried by academic libraries, but from what Google Books allows it appears that on whatever page the Institute is mentioned it is simply listed with contact information in some appendix section at the end of the book. It is being used in the lead to source this -- "The organization also runs a retreat center called the Meadow Haven Retreat and Recovery Center." That's like using the phone book as a source. Clearly they run the retreat center and the Globe is used for that information in the entry itself. Absolutely no need for that source in the lead. I'm removing it.PelleSmith (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this further I'm not sure I understand the second use of this reference either. None of those books are notable enough to make it more than trivial to mention that this Institute is listed in them as a resource. The fact that they are so listed is not mentioned by a secondary or tertiary source either. One is blue linked, but that is because the creator of this entry also created an entry for Twisted Scriptures, and I'm not entirely sure Twisted Scripture' meets WP:BK -- see the relevant talk page there for discussion of that topic. Can this be explained please. The sentence in question is: "The Institute is referenced as a resource for information on religious groups, in books including The Cult Next Door,[29] Reflected Truth,[30] Twisted Scriptures,[31] and When Prayer Fails.[10]"PelleSmith (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not sure that any part of the paragraph the above quoted sentence is in belongs in "commentary". This paragraph purports to provide information about the Institute and its activities and not commentary. If the information meets our guidelines it should be moved to the main content section.PelleSmith (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved it, as suggested, thanks. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the transcript for this dateline stuff I see nothing but the title to suggest such a thing? Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazon listings are notorious for having incorrect page counts. they often take pre-publication page counts from the publisher which can be off by 5-10% in either direction, and enter these into their database when pre-listing books. Then the database is often not corrected when the book is actually published. DES ^(talk) 02:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)