Talk:List of new religious movements/Archive 1

Arbitrary section header
You guys can argue this if you wish, but let's be reasonable: Buddhism pre-dates Christianity (which is not on the list) by a few hundred years. I'm removing it. Islam a) does not begin with a "J" and b) is nearly 1400 years old, is the second largest religious movement in the world, etc. It, too, is not a "new religious" movement. unixslug 00:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Dangerous Ground
I just got wind of this "list" today. It is treading on dangerous ground. Many of listings are not religious movements, some pre-date 1920, and some would find it terribly offensive to be listed aside organizations that are views as cults or sects, and rightly so. This list also presumes that the world revolves around the United States and that these religion's legitmacy is marked by their recognition by American law or wide acceptance by American citizens, both of which are egocentric positions.

Exactly what is the purpose of this list? And who is its main viewer?

Needless to say I made several minor edits.

Criteria
What criteria includes Zorastianism, the old monotheistic religion in existence, as a "new religious movement"? Or, for that matter, atheism? -Willmcw 20:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The list must start with a definition otherwise the list is meaningless. The definition that I used was proposed by Barker who coined the term. I strongly oppose making a list without definition. Andries 20:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason why Zoroastrianism was included was because Zappaz removed the definition and copied a list of religious movevements compiled by Cowan. I oppose this methodology. I will later try to integrate Zappaz edits one by obe into the list. Each NRM has to be checked individually whehter it fits the definition. Andries 20:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The definition is stated in the intro. It is wide, yes, but NPOV and without WP:NOR. If you don't like it, we can split the list in two: List of new religious movements by Eileen Barker and List if new religious movements by Jefferey Hadden and Douglas Cowan. That will be silly... But you cannot "hijack" the List of new religious movements and use it to list from Barker's. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 20:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I warn you of WP:NOR. Please thread carefully. And in the future, while we are in a moratorium on a similar article, it will be nice manners to inform editors involved that you are working on a related article.. Thanks. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 20:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not care which definition is used as long as it is clearly defined in the beginning and a "definition" referring to (very different) lists compiled by several other people is not a real definition. The most logical thing to do is use the definition of the person who coined the term and is still influential in the field. Andries 20:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

To avoid yet-another-edit-war, please find a scholarly definition of "New Religious Movement", by a source that we can agree with, put that in the intro and then evaluate each entry for inclusion. What say you? --ZappaZ 20:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will do that but that was exactly what had I tried to do, though possibly not very carefully worded. Andries 21:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that we need to find a definition of the term "New Religious Movement" as it widely held by scholars (so that it is NPOV), and not just by one or another. Let's put our research hats and find a good citation. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 21:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I doubt whether we could find a definition that is widely held. I oppose the list by Hadden and Douglas as a basis for this article that contains among other Buddism! Andries 21:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, 'No one cares what Andries think. This is WP, we have WP:NPOV and WP:NOR thank you-very-much. We need a widely held definition of NRM. Find one and let's discuss. Thanks. It won't be easy. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 21:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to forget that one can have widely divergent opinions about how these policies should be applied in practice for a specfic article and hence my opinion and opinions of other contributors do matter. Andries 21:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, I do not think there such a thing as a widely held definition of a new religious movement. Andries 21:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * NRMs don't include Hinduism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, or Atheism. Any version that includes any of those should be reverted on sight as disruptive of WP. --goethean &#2384; 22:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope this doesn't count as OR, but in 1995 the Observer newspaper in the UK ran an article "The A-Z of cults" which was subsequently described by the editor as "tongue-in-cheek". The Observer articles are no longer on line, but text files are currently available . Included here you will find Zoroastrianism, Mormonism and more. Jeffrey Hadden's list started as student projects from around 1996 onwards (see ). I suspect the list includes Zoroastrianism for the same reason as the Observer did (desperation!). In any case, taking a view on student projects, I'm sure the Hadden list cannot be viewed as definitive by any means. John Campbell 17:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hadden's list intentionally included any religion whose offshoots could become an NRM, in other words anything. In fact in many places it just calls itself "religious movements" page and that it was originally meant to be a site about NRMs was something I didn't know until I came here.--T. Anthony 08:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition of New Religious Movement
We could simply use the one in WP:
 * A new religious movement or NRM appears as a religious, ethical or spiritual grouping that has not (yet) become recognised as a standard denomination, church, or body, especially when it has a novel belief system and when it is not a sect.''

... and then adding a sensible time-span such as ''since the nineteen century".

There is an interesting discussion here: Category_talk:New_religious_movements, that can save us a lot of re-hashing the same arguments again. --ZappaZ 20:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * the time frame since the 19th century is completely arbitrary and quite unusual. Andries 21:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

An interesting article about the definitions of NRM @ Pratt University's website: Online Resource Guide in Social Sciences --ZappaZ 22:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

... and of course, Chryssides' NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS - SOME PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION --ZappaZ  23:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that article (though Chryssides is wrong in his assertion that academics do not use the word cults). I have to refine my statement made above. The time span since the nineteen century is quite arbitrary, but Barrett/Barker's time span of after the WWII is self-admitted arbitrary. Andries 05:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Why don't we add a sign for the NRMs that do not fulfill the Barker and Barrett definition (post WWII), but fulfills the post 1850s definition e.g "after 1850s". That would solve the problem. Andries 16:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That would be too much work, why don't we start from 1900 and onwards? Any objections? --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 21:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * yes, where are the scholary references for this arbitrary year? Andries 21:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, I think it is at least an improvement if we start from 1900, as long as pre-WWII movements are clearly marked as such and as long as in the intro is stated that pre-WWII is not a generally accepted definition. Andries 07:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Let's start now checking one by one, deleting whatever does not fit. We also need a new intro. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 15:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS ??? Who included them in the list ? By all means, it is NOT a religious movement ! It DOES refer to God as a way to help the ones who attend the meetings, but believing in God is "just" an extra tool to help you find your life back ! There is no question of cult, or services, or life after death, or what God thinks/says/demands/plans etc. And many ATHEISTS join the meetings ! For them it is really nothing but a mental exercise, to help them put some pressure off their shoulders. Maybe the meetings in the US are only held in churches (or their basement), but it is NOT the case in other countries. They just take whatever room is given to them, at a reasonable rent ! I did not take it off the list before asking for explanations, but I think it should be done !! Govinda

While I appreciate the scholarly intent of NRM is to create an alternative to the inherently perjorative term "cult", IMHO NRM is intrinsically flawed as defined. Who is The Authority to "recognize" / bless / sanction a NRM into a non-NRM? Aside from definition the list's inclusions seem very US if not European biased. SC 02:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please add your comments at the bottom of a section. Thanks. Read the criteria for inclusion: This List of new religious movements lists groups that appears as a religious, ethical or spiritual grouping that have not yet become recognised as a standard denomination, church, or body. New Religious Movements are interesting because of their potential and the window they give into how religions form or evolve. New Religions have the potential to become mainstream or to self-destruct. In either case it helps the understanding of the psychology of religion.. You are welcome to edit and make this article better. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]]
 * The current criteria include: which are not recognized as standard denominations, churches, or religious bodies. How exactly do we determine what is a 'standard' denomination, church or religious body? Quite a few of the churches or groups listed in the article are recognised by their peers -- 'in communion with', as one might say in a purely Christian context. Either the list itself needs drastic pruning, or the preamble needs changing to reflect what is actually listed here. Ben Cruachan 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the preamble a bit and took out a few things which were questionable. The list still might be a bit OR, now that I understand Wikipedia better, but should be a bit better.--T. Anthony 10:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute
I gave the article an accuracy dispute because I found some pre-1900 (jehovah's witnesses, Shirdi Sai Baba) entries and there may be more. Each entry on the list has to be checked. Andries 07:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If there are these that do not fit the critera, please remove them. Thanks. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 03:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)ere


 * There exists also a definition that NMRs are everything founded later than Sikhism, the youngest world religion (ref. German Wikipedia and the ref. there (Georg Schmid... Swiss professor or religious science) --Irmgard 11:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Would "founded later than Sikhism" mean after Guru Nanak founded the faith or after the Guru Granth Sahib of 1708? Also would it still be NMR, using this definition, if it's just an offshoot of another religion? For example the Methodists were formed in the 1780s, which is after the Guru Granth Sahib. Yet when it was formed it was not "new" the way Sikhism was during the life of Guru Nanak. Does that make sense?


 * Also some these days would state that Bahai does now count as the youngest world religion. It's on every continent and has over seven million members. That would put every faith founded after 1863 as a new religion. Which would include the Salvation Army, Church of the Nazarene, and the United Church of Christ. That seems a bit odd too, but a bit more workable perhaps. Although in the case of the UCC it's really a merger of much older churches so wouldn't count--T. Anthony 23:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I took some out and I'll try to justify why here. The United Methodists are just a new organization of Methodists. Methodists date back to the 1700s. The Church of the Nazarene is newer than Bahai, but it is ultimately over a hundred and also a stricter variant of Methodists.(Being newer than Sikhism is at best useful if it's a clear break with any previous religion. All Methodism would be newer than Sikhism, but few would deem them an NRM) The Pentecostals are about as old as Bahai. The Seventh Day Adventists originate in the 1850s I think. The Mormons are equally old so if they're still up there maybe someone else can handle that. Garvey's group did actually have religious overtones, which influenced Rastafarianism, but it's disputed enough I took it off. Finally Christianity has been in Japan since the sixteenth century and it's been allowed openly since the 1870s I think. Unless a specific Japanese Christian NRM is meant it seemed confusing and the link didn't lead anywhere anyway.--T. Anthony 08:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's improved since I first saw it, but it's still a tad odd in some areas. There are several noted New Religious Movements which I think are absent. The Kimbanguists for example are very significant in number and probably could count as new. Added to that Swedenborgianism is on the list. Although it may not be mainstream the Swedenborgians have been organized as a religion in the US since 1817 or so and even earlier in Britain. Helen Keller and Johnny Appleseed were members. --T. Anthony 13:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking them up further they had a university in the US in 1850. One of them was in Congress in the 1850s. Frank Lloyd Wright designed one of their churches. They sound a mite odd, but not exactly new or all that unmainstream.--T. Anthony 13:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Another note "Snake Handlers" isn't that one groups real name. They are called Church of God with Signs Following.--T. Anthony 13:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition again - not only time line
George Chryssides sees three factors defining new religious movements
 * time range - he takes 150 years, remarking that the time range varies a lot
 * new movements - which he defines as not being part of any existing religion, either due to their own claims that they are separate from XXX or "the only real XXX" or that their claimed identity is disputed by the respective mainstream religion (Scientology, LDS or Christian Science would be NMRs by this definition - Opus Dei, Methodists and most Charismatic churches not)
 * religious - by which he excludes movements like TM or est etc. --Irmgard 19:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed some groups which are not "new" because they are an accepted part of a bigger church or direction (Opus Dei is fully recognized as Catholic by the Catholic Church, Promise Keepers, Assemblies of God and Willow Creek etc. are generally seen as Evangelical by mainstream conservative Evangelical Christianity). --Irmgard 19:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But aren't they new "movements"? Pentecostalism is explicitly labelled as a movement in its article. -Willmcw 20:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are developments which do not result in one single separate church or organization but in several or many organizationally independent groups and/or similar groups within established churches which are loosely connected by some common ideas - and the designation of that is a movement. There is a conservative Evangelical movement within Methodist and Presbyterian mainstream churches, a missionary Evangelical movement which includes Billy Graham, Willow Creek and Campus Crusade, and there is a Charismatic/Pentecostal movement. In all of these cases, the result is not a new" type of church separate from all others. Members of these movements exist within established churches and in independent churches and while not denying their church adherence they feel as well in agreement with members of the movement which belong to other churches, see them as Christian brothers and sisters and share prayer and worship with them (without asking much how theologically correct that is in the view of their church superiors). These cross-church movements do not have a distinct novel belief system and they are no distinct organizations separate from existing churches, and neither are they uniformely rejected by established churches (by some people or parties within established churches, yes - but that's also true for, e.g., liberal theology). Such movements are, in my view, not "New religious movements" - they don't fit the definition of the first para.
 * On the other hand, there are distinct groups within established religion which are generally accepted as part of that established religion (no one says Opus Dei is not Catholic or Willow Creek is not Evangelical). Those groups are IMO not "New religious movements" - they also don't fit the definition of the first para.
 * Then there are groups which do see themselves as distinctly separated from all existing churches or as the "only real XXX church" - these are "new" religious movements (even though they often claim old historical roots) - a historical example would be the Reformation churches.
 * And lastly there are groups which claim to be part of an established religion and are not recognized by that established religion - these also count as new per definition of the first para. --Irmgard 14:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

On one side, there are many "movements" within established churches which see themselves as part of that church and are also accepted as such by the church. There are charismatic movements (great part of that within the Catholic church), conservative Evangelical movements within mainstream Evangelical churches, inclusive movements, etc.


 * We are not using Chryssides' defintion, but Barker's and Barret's. Reverted. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 22:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, it is not true that we are only using Barrett's and Barker's definition, after all we included pre-WWII movements because of your insistence on this. I think some of Irmgard's removals are justified because she removed some sects. Andries 22:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think Opus Dei can be counted because it's a religious order not a religious movement. If we're going to count any new Catholic or other religious order we should also count The Focolare Movement and Taize Community. In fact those two might fit better as both are movements more than religious orders. Added to that the article on Pentacostalism states that the idea of a Pentecostal movement dates from 1867 and the Church of God (Cleveland) is a Pentecostal denomination from the 1880s. I am willing to count everything after Bahai as a "new religious movement" but ideally I think a denomination more than a 100 years old should only count if it is totally disconnected to any major religion.
 * Opus Dei and Focolare are an officially recognized groups within the Catholic Church - they are definitely not separate new movements. --Irmgard 14:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Similar on the Evangelical side Willows Creek, International Moody Bible Institute, Promise Keepers. Vineyard Movement, Foursquare Gospel, Calvary Chapel, Christian Reformed Church in North America, Christian and Missionary Alliance are Christian denominations. All of them are somewhat ecumenically connected, either to Evangelical Alliance or to some other cross-denominiational organization and do not fit the first para definition. --Irmgard 14:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey Irmgard I kind of agree. I think I took Pentecostalism off before you did. I'd be fine with removing Moody, Promise Keepers, Opus Dei, Christian Reformed Church in North America, and a couple others. However if I do I know they'll just be put back by tomorrow. Still I'll be so bold as to remove a couple of those.--T. Anthony 03:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That said I didn't remove anything this time as there is debate on these issues. I did edit some naming conventions to allow for the links to work.--T. Anthony 02:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay now I have removed something, the "Watchtower..." entry. That name was an earlier name for the Jehovah's Witnesses. If someone wishes the JWs to be on the list that's a different matter, but they aren't on it at present.--T. Anthony 03:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I took Konkokyo off the list for now as they were established in 1859 and recognized by the Japanese government in 1900. I know Wiki lists them as an NRM though so I'll ask my sister--T. Anthony 03:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC).--T. Anthony 03:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, The Purpose is What?
I said in my last entry, this list is dangerous. What is it's purpose? It couldn't possibly exist to define "new religious movements" as its strewn with errors. Since I edited it, many more have occurred and even more are left to be made.

The reality is that this is Christian focused document. Its only really useful purpose is to define religions or non-similiar gatherings outside of itself. In fact, even it's title is subterfuge, as it betrays its true intent - to find a way to define certain movements,congregations or otherwise as cults. This is something that Christians and secularists seem to be too eager to do and an activity that has no real benefit other than dividing people.

For example, its completely inappropriate to list any type, sect or version of Hinduism on a list with Satanism. Even if you don't agree, both Satanists and Hindi would agree. You even list MOVE, which had no religious philosophy at all, outside of the general ethics followed by their predecessors in the earlier 60s and 70s social movements. This is list that is burdened with euro/western/christian assumptions. It is predicated on opinion and more importantly only ONE opinion, which conveniently is one that would not be viewed as a "new" religious movement or as a cult, which means it one people defining another. A task which usually results in falsehoods, sterotypes and oppressive recordkeeping.

Many of these so-call "new" religious movements are actually offshoots of religions that are much older than all western religions. So while they are younger manifestations, they may not really be new at all, or at least no newer than say certain segments of the Christian community or sects of Islam.

Not only am I concerned about the accuracy of the list, I want to understand why it needs to exist. Who would use it? and to what end? And what body of information does it provide the user that can not be found elsewhere that is both unbiased and respectful?

There you go, please illuminate me. Does everyone consider this to be an unbiased document?


 * There has been bias, old Eastern religions have received few calls to have them removed, but if you'll look at my edits in least I'm trying to remove Eastern religions that were founded well before 1900. I took Konkokyo off even though on Wiki's "Konkokyo" page they call it an NRM. I took off...well I can't remember its name right now but it was an Indian religion dating back to the 1500s. There is a sense that calling something an NRM is perjorative, but I do think it's interesting to know what religions are comparatively recent. Some might see a religion being newer as a potential good even. Anyway your complaint is noted and I will look harder for any non-Western religion that's been unfairly called "new."--T. Anthony 11:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay I did my best to remove names whose Wiki links just say were "Hindu thinkers" rather than founders of any new religion. I also put Unity Christianity back. I hope that in least gets rid of some bias. If the group agrees I'd be for taking Vedanta and the Native American Church off. I am Catholic BTW, but I think this can have a purpose without unduly upsetting non-Western peoples. Still many New Religions are from non-Western cultures so many should stay on this list.--T. Anthony 12:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I changed the opener to be gentler. Now as for why I like lists like this, well some of why I put in the opener. However the other reason is I read and sometimes write science fiction. Maybe the future won't be full of Sokka Gakai temples, but still who knows? In least it'd throw a window on the possibility that even the religious map of the West is going to change alot in the coming decades. Hinduism is one of the fastest growing faiths in America so having a list that has some new Hindu groups growing in the US is useful for credible SF writings and researchers. (I'm not a credible SF writer) Hope that answered some--T. Anthony 12:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What is new? or Western bias
SC Witch stated: While I appreciate the scholarly intent of NRM is to create an alternative to the inherently perjorative term "cult", IMHO NRM is intrinsically flawed as defined. Who is The Authority to "recognize" / bless / sanction a NRM into a non-NRM? Aside from definition the list's inclusions seem very US if not European biased.


 * I may different from the others here, I'm newer to this than many, but personally I would think it stops being new when it's not new anymore. Either because its beliefs are no longer seen as all that novel or it's been around long enough it's not new. As no one currently alive is confirmed to have been born before 1890 I would think anything founded before 1890 could only be "new" if it has broken from any previous religion. For example Antoinism was founded by a man born in the 1840s, but it is based on a system fairly separate from any of the religious cultures of France. So much so that many parts of Wikipedia are listing it, apparently inaccurately, as an African religion. Thus making its beliefs "newer" than its chronological date would imply. Still even it's not from before 1890 and I don't think I'd be comfortable adding anything before that date.


 * Now as for the US/EU bias I have been trying to correct that. I took off several Eastern movements that weren't really new, even by the definition involving Sikhism's founding, or that aren't really religions. I've also tried to add some groups from Brazil that really are new, sometimes from after 1970 even. I'm not convinced my efforts are approved of or even entirely working out so far, but it's a start. Could you explain more clearly though what you mean by a US/EU bias?--T. Anthony 06:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay "Jesus Army" and "Jesus Fellowship Church" are apparently the same thing so I cut out one of the repeated entries. I might put a note though listing it's other name.--T. Anthony 06:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Musings
I was wondering on something, likely because of sleeplessness. The dates 1900 and 1945 are placed as significant to this in a way, but nothing after 1945 is. That maybe makes sense, but it seems to me the collapse of the Soviet Union and related factors maybe was significant to the history of religion and new religion. The listing of Universe people got me thinking on that some as well. I'm not suggesting we should mention if the group was founder after 1993 (the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia and the Unified Team last played in 1992) but in the case of Eastern European groups would it be a good or bad thing if we did? Thoughts.--T. Anthony 13:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point, but I don't know how if this should be put in this article or in the article new religious movement, or in a separate article e.g. New religious movements in post communist societies. I think Barker has written about this. Russia has restrictions against foreign groups. There are quite a few NRMs in those countries who have like the Universe people some entertainment value for outsiders like myself. Other are more tragic. For example, I read that several of the organizers of the Mothers of Beslan committee had become a member of a cult that claims can re-surrect their children. Andries 18:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That is sad. I was just blue-skying that one day weeks ago.--T. Anthony 01:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
Hi, I am suggesting merging the content of List of cults, but keeping the criteria and format of this article. Essentially, List of cults has developed POV problems, which have been avoided in this article. 80.189.75.153 18:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that there is a problem which needs to be fixed, or that this proposed solution would improve either article. -Will Beback 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't you mean List of groups referred to as cults? There is a big difference in meaning.  If people are treating the article like it's a list of cults (which is not something Wikipedia can make, since "cult" is essentially pejorative in common usage), that's probably your POV problem right there.  I do think that the phenomenon of labeling certain groups as "cults" is real and the list of groups so labelled is distinct from the list of new religious movements, though the two often overlap. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 01:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the problem, but I did a great deal of work on this list awhile back and I'd prefer it not be junked up. Added to that the purported cult list includes several faiths which are not really NRMs. Either because they're too old like Exclusive Brethren or because they're not a religious movement as in examples LaRouche Movement or Objectivist movement. The ones on that list that are NRMs are mostly already here.--T. Anthony 15:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, in the absence of a consesus to merge, I have removed the tag. 80.189.229.1 18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I might add some NRMs that are on the cultlist to here though.--T. Anthony 01:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed that there's now a link on this article to an "alternate" list of new religious movements "based on different sources". What is going on with that? We shouldn't have two different lists of the same thing. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 06:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not a standalone list - it's a section of List of religions. That list endeavors to be comprehenisve, so it should include mostly the same material. Since it's comprehensive, that entire list includes NRMs, near-NRMs, quasi-NRMs, and other groups that might not qualify here. But I don't know why the sources should be different. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 07:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"cults" (in the narrow sense, as opposed to the sense of cultus)) are clearly a subset of "religions", just as "new religious movements" are a subset of "religion". list of religions is unmaintainable and should be reduced to a "list of lists". dab (𒁳) 17:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Spiritist
I'd like to query Spiritist being co-joined with Esoteric AND listed as a sub-category under Western.

I am wondering if a separate title for organizations based on mediumship and channelling, e.g. Brahma Kumaris, Ramtha etc ought to get their own. Whereas Ramtha is Western, the Brahma Kumaris are Eastern BUT see themselves as being non-Hindu. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove Tenrikyo
I will remove Tenrikyo today as it was founded in the 1800s and its founder died in, I think it was 1878. Clearly not young enough to be a NRM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.167.66 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing, I am Series premiere (remake) (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Again sorry, the date of death was 1887 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Series premiere (remake) (talk • contribs) 07:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

List addition request
Hello everyone. I'm not sure where you want this request, as the page is currently locked out for editing, so I figured here would be the best place. Under "African: New religious movements drawing on traditional African religions." please place Kemetic Orthodoxy - world wide, founded 1988. Also if possible, make the alphabetical listing match? Obviously, if this is not the specific formating for the line entry, it should match whatever the group desires it to look like. - IanCheesman (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * well, now that the protection is gone, I went ahead and did it myself. - IanCheesman (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

more included....?
Alamo Foundation, ref at

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/NRM.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Gurdjieff Foundation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

see more with the ref

NB: I'm talking about the fact, rather than authenticity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC), blue chips vs secondaries or tertiaries

Benchmarks of those ORGs....?
Can we setup them based on the thesis below?

http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/2227

or other additional criteria ???

Such as

Health (hospital/GP visit rate, Hygiene profiles)

Happiness (contentedness, ....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)  and any wellbeing benchmarks

Social responsibility —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)  for the sustanability of mankind

Ecoresponsibility —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)  for the sustanability of ecosystem, environment and non-human species.

"Afro-American section"
According to the article "Afro-American religion"--"They derive from African traditional religions, especially of West and Central Africa, showing similarities to the Yoruba religion in particular."

The groups listed do not fit that criteria, but are instead Western Hemisphere groups with sizable black membership.--Editor2020 (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientology
The new religious movement - The Church of Scientology - is not listed. Instead the body of knowledge, the study, - Scientology - is listed. I believe this is erroneous and misleading. Without any doubt The Church of Scientology fulfills all of the definitions of a new religious movement. On the other hand - Scientology - (which is a body of knowledge and can be found in certain books and recorded lectures), doesn't. On one hand the Church of Scientology which is most certainly a new religious movement is not listed. On the other hand - Scientology - which isn't a new religious movement by itself, is not listed. Terryeo 12:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm undecided on how we should handle this distinction. The Church of Scientology is a particular organization, but the Scientology movment includes the Free Zone, does it not? Most people think Scientology / Dianteics and the Church of Scientology are synonymous. This is virtually true, in that the RTC (the people pulling all the strings in the CoS) controls the very terminology and texts down to the letter through trademark and copyright monopoly. But it's like saying Christianity isn't a traditional religious movement, but the Catholic Church is - which incidentally also would exclude Orthodoxy and Protestantism, etc.. Moving forward, some NRMs are owned and controlled by a single entity, some are not, so to be clear in meaning for the sake of the list, I think we should keep it simple. Just too many problems if you split hairs like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is under supremacist religions due to the concept of "Homo Novis" or "New Man" as per the Dianetics Technical Dictionary; which also goes on to state that this is a new evolved race of man ie "supreme race" Groupsisxty (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is under "Space or Alien" religions, due to the OT III materials, as per the Court Records covering all of the topics. This is not OR. Groupsisxty (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After some thought, I am not going to dispute further the Space category as Scientology is listed in the main UFO religion article and "space opera" certainly plays a part in Scientology. That is not central to Scientology or what it is "based on" but there is enough source on the topic to make arguing it an exercise that I will not pursue. Perhaps another will care to as it is indicative of a very incomplete and skewed view of what Scientology is. Same thing with talking about Scientology in the main UFO religion article. However I am holding the line on the "supremacist" bit as that topic is clearly talking about something else entirely. Scientology does not hold one race or type as above others but claims that all are equal and all can improve. So let's leave it as one in and one out for now. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But it holds the race "Homo Novis" is superior, and it creates them, as sited in the reference. Groupsisxty (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such race. Scientology maintains that everyone can reach a higher state - that is not "supremacist", just about every religion claims that; Hubbard just called it "Homo Novis" instead of "saved" or "enlightened" or "ascended" or whatever. ps I have a talk page but it is blocked against new or unregistered users for obvious reasons. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As cited in the reference, that race (Homo Novis) is an evolved, not enlightened, and therefore a racial group, given the context used in the definition provided by the Religious Technology Center (aka Church of Scientology), it is a race, not a state of being. This therefore makes it a racial issue. So unless another definition is provided, or some reference(Not RTC propaganda), it should stay. Another argument could be used in the case of the word "wog". (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * After additional research, the treatment for SP's (To include anyone not supporting Scientology and Homosexuals) should be "quietly disposed of, quietly and without sorrow" Since it particularly includes homosexuals and lesbians in this criteria, definitely supremacists; due to their inability to "evolve".  So clearly, not everyone can evolve(as per the citation), "become enlightened", as per your opinion of the Church Doctrines. Groupsisxty (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * More reference, done by a second and third party on the subject:

Groupsisxty (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * http://solitarytrees.net/racism/deny.htm
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Scientology


 * Additional citations supporting this:


 * "The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in Dynamic II [i.e. sexuality] such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc., and all down the catalog of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically... he is very far from culpable for his condition, but he is also far from normal and extremely dangerous to society..." - Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, pp. 122-123. Church of Scientology of California, 1978 edition. ISBN 0-88404-000-3


 * "Such people should be taken from the society as rapidly as possible and uniformly institutionalized; for here is the level of the contagion of immorality, and the destruction of ethics; here is the fodder which secret police organizations use for their filthy operations. One of the most effective measures of security that a nation threatened by war could take would be rounding up and placing in a cantonment, away from society, any 1.1 individual who might be connected with government, the military, or essential industry; since here are people who, regardless of any record of their family's loyalty, are potential traitors, the very mode of operation of their insanity being betrayal. In this level is the slime of society, the sex criminals, the political subversives, the people whose apparently rational activities are yet but the devious writhings of secret hate." - Hubbard, Science of Survival, pp. 88-90. Church of Scientology of California, 1975 edition. ISBN 0-88404-001-1


 * "The number of engrams in a Zulu would be astonishing. Moved out of his restimulative area and taught English he would escape the penalty of much of his reactive data; but in his native habitat the Zulu is only outside the bars of a madhouse because there are no madhouses provided by his tribe. It is a safe estimate, and one based on better experience than is generally available to those who have conclusions on 'modern man' by studying primitive races, that primitives are far more aberrated than civilized peoples. Their savageness, their unprogressiveness, their incidence of illness: all stem from their reactive patterns, not from their inherent personalities… The contagion of aberration, being much greater in a primitive tribe, and the falsity of the supersitious data in the engrams of such a tribe both lead to a conclusion which, observed on the scene, is carried out by actuality." - Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (1988 ed.), book 2, chapter 8, p. 183 - 'The Contagion of Aberration'

So, I'm not sure if this is OR, but it would seem that "Supremacist" is a good category according to RTC Writings (Which are doctrines of the Church of Scientology). Groupsisxty (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we do a partial protect on this section until it's ironed out? Groupsisxty (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who have erased the "See also" section...
please bring the reason here, otherwise this kind of action is very rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That material was not sequitur to this list. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist movements
Selection seems entirely arbitrary. Vipassana is part of Theravada, the oldest form of Buddhism. NKT is part of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. These do not fit the definition stated at the top. On the other hand, if you include all de facto new movements, then all Western(ized) forms should be included. Peter jackson (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true, as mentioned by User:Cirt below, I think this is a critical issue with this list at this point. We need sourcing on everything to concur with the above mentioned definition, and if not matching, to be removed/moved to a new listing. Groupsisxty (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Supremacist Religions

 * Whether or not to include Scientology as a Supremacist Religion


 * Oppose inclusion as a Supremacist Religion - Scientology already appears on the list and inclusion as "supremacist" is WP:OR based solely on a read of primary materials. Please see this AN/I topic for opinions on the RfC subject by other experienced editors. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Selected arguments against inclusion:
 * The Creed of the Church of Scientology:"'We of the Church believe: That all men of whatever race, color, or creed were created with equal rights'"


 * The list clearly states what is meant by "supremacist""'New religious movements emphasizing racial or ethnic supremacism'"It is not whether the members of the religion think they are "better" or "more favored in the eyes of God" or "enlightened" or "saved" or "ascended" or "Clear" or "OT" or "Homo Novis" - it is whether the religion preaches racial or ethnic supremacy. Scientology does not.
 * And this is moot as it is WP:OR for us to "decide". Scientology is not categorized in WP:RS as supremacist. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You must've missed the Zulu people citation, or the Homo Sapien vs. Homo Novis one... Let's not clutter this with our opinion, and wait on another Adminstrator, or Wiki User --Groupsisxty (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't miss it. I understand it in the context of the book and the subject. All you have is an out-of-context cherry-picked line - no understanding. That is why we rely on secondary sources here, not our interpretation of primary sources. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you missed the interview with an ex-member (Who was an OT VIII), or the Fox News Reference. --Groupsisxty (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For Inclusion as a Supremacist, as per the provided citations. One of the citations clearly states the Zulu race is subordinate to other races.  There are also opinions of prior members of scientology (Which can be cited if needed) stating such.  There are numerous citations which state one race or another is lesser than another, and also states homosexuals "should be done away with quietly, and without sorrow" (Citation can be provided).


 * "7.Being gay was not ever my choice or intention but it is not something that Scientology will ever "handle" however much one spends (I spent close to a half million dollars in Scientology, and I still want my money back!). Scioentology considers being gay as an "aberration" that needs to be erased. However, they don't erase it and are in actual practice anti-gay (as I and others got sent to "ethics" correction for such behavior). They did, however, accept hundreds of thousands of "Gay dollars" from me in full for a service they never delivered in full.Being gay may be something we don't understand yet but it exists in millions of people and, even when humans who misapply their own religious beliefs and spit hate out at gays, God loves me just the way I am. " - Michael Pattinson, http://exscn.net/content/view/75/101/


 * "The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in Dynamic II [i.e. sexuality] such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc., and all down the catalog of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically... he is very far from culpable for his condition, but he is also far from normal and extremely dangerous to society..." - Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, pp. 122-123. Church of Scientology of California, 1978 edition. ISBN 0-88404-000-3


 * "Such people should be taken from the society as rapidly as possible and uniformly institutionalized; for here is the level of the contagion of immorality, and the destruction of ethics; here is the fodder which secret police organizations use for their filthy operations. One of the most effective measures of security that a nation threatened by war could take would be rounding up and placing in a cantonment, away from society, any 1.1 individual who might be connected with government, the military, or essential industry; since here are people who, regardless of any record of their family's loyalty, are potential traitors, the very mode of operation of their insanity being betrayal. In this level is the slime of society, the sex criminals, the political subversives, the people whose apparently rational activities are yet but the devious writhings of secret hate." - Hubbard, Science of Survival, pp. 88-90. Church of Scientology of California, 1975 edition. ISBN 0-88404-001-1


 * "The number of engrams in a Zulu would be astonishing. Moved out of his restimulative area and taught English he would escape the penalty of much of his reactive data; but in his native habitat the Zulu is only outside the bars of a madhouse because there are no madhouses provided by his tribe. It is a safe estimate, and one based on better experience than is generally available to those who have conclusions on 'modern man' by studying primitive races, that primitives are far more aberrated than civilized peoples. Their savageness, their unprogressiveness, their incidence of illness: all stem from their reactive patterns, not from their inherent personalities… The contagion of aberration, being much greater in a primitive tribe, and the falsity of the supersitious data in the engrams of such a tribe both lead to a conclusion which, observed on the scene, is carried out by actuality." - Dianetics:Modern Science of Mental Health, L. Ron Hubbard, Church of Scientology of California, ISBN 0-88404-000-3 (1988 ed.), book 2, chapter 8, p. 183 - 'The Contagion of Aberration'


 * If Scientology could not be included as Supremacist then Westboro Baptist needs to be removed, since it does not state any treatments of other races.

Groupsisxty (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted, that any classifaction of religions would be WP:OR, and therefore the list should be re-merged to the list of religions article.


 * Secondary source: "A Scientologist who’s ‘clear’ believes he’s no longer a Homosapien. He’s Homo-novis, a new race. They believe they are the only hope for this section of the galaxy, starting with planet Earth." Fox News Shii (tock) 02:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? A Christian thinks they are "saved" and that acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal savior is the only hope. Does that make Christianity a "supremacist" religion? --Justallofthem (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a "belief vs. scientific fact" as per the book: L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, pp. 122-123. Church of Scientology of California, 1978 edition. ISBN 0-88404-000-3. Again, let's wait on another Admin or Wiki Users to weigh in on it. --Groupsisxty (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Another piece of information to be thrown into the mix when deciding whether to classify Scientology as "supremacist": in Science of Survival (a highly significant text in the development of Scientology), Hubbard clearly states that no healthy society can afford to recognize the civil rights of people low enough on the 'tone scale' (which includes homosexuals). The high-toned may therefore quarantine or 'cure' the low-toned, or even exterminate them, as the notorious "quietly and without sorrow" text has it:

"The only answers would seem to be the permanent quarantine of such ['1.1, or covertly hostile, low-toned'] persons from society to avoid the contagion of their insanities and the general turbulence which they bring into any order, thus forcing it lower on the scale, or processing such person until they have attained a level on the tone scale which gives them value.

In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints" (130).

"The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line - a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred - or simply quarantining them from the society. A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country." (156) --Ddqsdnlj (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also, would it be helpful to have statements from European governments who are concerned about passages like these as indicating that Scientology is incompatible with a democratic society that respects human rights? I'm not sure what the working criteria are for being "supremacist". --Ddqsdnlj (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For evidence of supremacist beliefs in scientology, see Tone scale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc abian (talk • contribs) 11:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Admins PLEASE READ- just to point out that justallofthem aka justanother is the same guy who undid the article on Scientologist Noelle North and caused it to be deleted. The 'Subway' incident has video evidence to back it up and should have been allowed to stand. Back to my point, he has now been the cause of TWO major incidents, undone edits left right and centre, so WHY has this man not been banned? He is obviously pro-Scientology to the point where he is not willing to accept the inclusion of anything which makes CoS look bad. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be objective? People like this user are bad for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.241.81 (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Because of its experiences during the Nazi regime, Germany has a special responsibility to monitor the development of any extreme group within its borders -- even when the group's members are small in number. Given the indisputable evidence that the Scientology organization has repeatedly attempted to interfere with the American government and has harmed individuals within Germany, the German federal government has responded in a very measured legal fashion to the Scientology organization. On June 6, 1997, Federal and State Ministers of the Interior asked the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz) to formally investigate several activities of the Scientology organization and make a report. The published report presented October 12, 1998, found that while "the Scientology organization agenda and activities are marked by objectives that are fundamentally and permanently directed at abolishing the free democratic basic order," additional time is needed to conclusively evaluate the Scientology organization. The ministers approved this request for more time." - http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/germany/germany21.html, Para. 9 - Groupsisxty (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * http://solitarytrees.net/racism/deny.htm - Multiple citations from here can be used from this tertiary source to support inclusion in this section. - Groupsisxty (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that scientology is a supremacist group. I don't agree that it is a religion. However, we would need a secondary source to state that it is supremacist to classify it as such in a Wikipedia article. I do not see a citation of a reliable secondary source.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day, there is now MORE THAN ENOUGH to warrant CoS inclusion as 'supremacist', nit-picking aside. For the record, I don't count Scientology as a religion either, they are a dangerous money-grabbing cult, But if they are to be classified as a religion, then the two categories in dispute are the most appropriate. '''justallofthem shifted his focus from getting rid of it from both categories to just supremacist because the 'alien-based' argument can be laughed off/denied by Scientology, supremacist can't and is more damaging. If Wikipedia makes this stand and puts CoS up as supremacist, it is going to be seen by a hell of a lot of people, CoS know this and it scares them.''' God forbid people might learn the truth! What about all the photos of CoS dressing up as Nazis, harrassing jews etc? And speaking of Nazis, germany has classified CoS a cult and is fully aware of their supremacist views, and let's face it if anyone should know about supremacist groups it's Germany! This is now getting beyond a joke. We have provided more than enough material to support our claims; justall of them has literally done nothing except whine, edit, undo edits, remove sources, etc etc. Wikipedia you need to end this, and do the right thing. Let the classifications stand, BAN this Scilon and MAKE SURE that no others try this kind of thing again!
 * Tin.Foil.Hat. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "As the student aspires to be HPA (Hubbard Professional Auditor) it is impressed on him that he is now a superior type of person who is leaving behind mundane considerations which preoccupy the despised homo sapiens. Advancement and success are dependent on the complete acceptance of scientology theory. Before commencing the professional courses (i.e., above HAS) one necessary qualification is "Complete subjective and objective reality on the entire scope of the Science of Scientology." This involves accepting without question or reservation-or what is called "cogniting" upon-not only those items of scientology theory mentioned in this Report but much similar additional material." - Anderson Report,Ch. 12, pg 83 http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/ar12.html


 * "THE THIRD DYNAMIC is the urge toward existence in groups of individuals. Any group or part of an entire class could be considered to be a part of the Third Dynamic. The school, the society, the town, the nation are each part of the Third Dynamic, and each one is a Third Dynamic. This can be called the group dynamic.

THE FOURTH DYNAMIC is the urge toward mankind whereas the white race would be considered a Third Dynamic. All the races would be considered the Fourth Dynamic. This can be called the mankind dynamic." - Anderson Report, Ch. 11, pg 66 http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/ar11.html Groupsisxty (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion unless a reliable secondary source is produced which describes Scientology as "supremacist". Efforts so far to demonstrate that Scientology is supremacist all seem to constitute synthesis based on primary sources. Click the links if you're not sure what those terms mean in the context of Wikipedia.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment:  argues that because the current letter of the section specifies racial or ethnic supremacism, supremacism in any of its other faces must be studiously ignored.  If we encountered a sect whose doctrines advocated that a particular racial or ethnic group be "abruptly deleted" for the good of the world; recommended that members of said racial or ethnic group be "disposed of, quietly and without sorrow", I don't think anyone would reasonably hesitate even for a minute to classify that group as supremacist.  No one would demand a reference, just as apparently no one ever has demanded a reference for the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, Kingdom Identity Ministries, Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, LaPorte Church of Christ, Nation of Yahweh, Esoteric Hitlerism, Nuwaubianism, Nation of Islam, World Church of the Creator, or Westboro Baptist Church; when it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's not "reliance on primary sources" to put it in a list of ducks.  But Justanother is trying to insist that because the particular pseudoscientific gobbledygook on which his sect bases its beliefs that they are a species superior to homo sapiens, and that they can infallibly determine which groups should be "disposed of" for the good of humanity, is not racial pseudoscientific gobbledygook, that it's therefore not supremacism.  I think the far more obvious conclusion is that the "racial or ethnic" qualifier should be dropped, since it places such artificial limits on supremacism. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually "Justanother" has not argued anything here in almost one year. I do not know why you are referencing my old and dormant account that I clearly identify with. No matter, the only real and salient point to be made is that there is no reliable secondary source that considers Scientology abhorrently "supremacist" because Scientology is not supremacist any more than the US Marines or the Catholic Church or MIT are "supremacist". In other words, your cherry-picked L. Ron Hubbard throwaway lines notwithstanding, Scientologists may believe that they are more able beings by virtue of their application of Scientology but so what? Does that make your corner gym "supremacist" too? I will help you out - it does not (not unless it bars ethnic or racial groups - which Scientology does not) and this entire exercise is an exercise in WP:OR. Truth be told, those categories should probably come out as they have changed a simple list of groups to another battleground for the ant-religionists and the anti-cultists. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The US Marines don't tell anyone "Hey, we are so superior to everyone else on Earth that we're capable of picking out 2.5% of the population that should be disposed of for the good of all." Neither do the Catholic Church or MIT.  Your continuing attempt to cling to a false premise that only racial and ethnic supremacism are "real" supremacism notwithstanding, your attempts to paint L. Ron Hubbard's call for genocide as "throwaway lines" that were "cherry-picked" is spurious; this was L. Ron Hubbard setting down doctrine for his followers and neither before nor after did doctrine deviate from that message of "you are now a superior kind of being who is entitled to pass judgment upon the 'wogs' who are your inferiors." -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, my argument is not spurious and I am happy to see that at least one critic understands that point at least (see below). What Scientology is and how it is practiced and what it is trying to achieve and how it goes about it (or at least what would be considered "Standard" - I cannot speak for violations of Scientology by anyone) are all contained in, and only contained in, the Bulletins and Policy Letters that form the woof and warp of the Church of Scientology. The critics' love of finding stray lines in Hubbard's writings and recorded lectures that are neither part of that fabric nor exemplified in the way Scientology is practiced is disingenuous at best. But all too common. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument is not only spurious, it's part of the classic double standard that every Scientologist seems to be trained to employ. If someone criticizes Scientology the knee-jerk response of the Scientologist is "you don't know anything about Scientology; you've obviously never even read a Scientology book!"  But then when the critic does read Scientology books and presents the Scientologist with evidence in black and white of the grandiosity, paranoia, intolerance and dishonesty that Hubbard built into Scientology, the Scientologist quickly invents some reason why that Scientology book 'doesn't count'.  Science of Survival was Hubbard's followup to DMSMH; to pretend that it does not represent what Hubbard intended Scientology to be is just intellectually dishonest.  -- or are you going to pretend that Dianetics too has nothing to do with Scientology and that every single line in it is merely a "stray line" which must be ignored, no matter how slavishly Scientologists follow it?  The Church of Scientology told the IRS that "the research, writings, and recorded lectures of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard ... collectively constitute the Scriptures of " and it continues to make this claim today; your claim that this is not true and that anything which is not a Bulletin or a Policy Letter can be conveniently ignored (no matter how damning it is) appears to be at best original research and at worst just a blatant lie. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We are getting more and more afield here. If you wish to continue this line of discussion please copy your post to my talk page. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion of whether what the Church of Scientology itself calls the Scriptures of Scientology include clearly supremacist declarations is hardly "afield". If any "new religious movement" stated outright in its second book-length text that all white people should be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow" for the good of the rest of the world, no one would be ridiculous enough to claim that movement wasn't supremacist.  Yet here you are, trying to offer absurd objections such as "it isn't racial supremacism, so it isn't supremacism!" and "it's not part of one specific sub-category of administrative declarations by the movement's founder, so it must be a 'throw away line' instead!" -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion of how to interpret primary materials is basically discussion of WP:OR and not really a proper use of article talk page. Not to mention the somewhat personal tone of your previous post. I don't care about that but again, not talk page material. I will not defend myself nor continue the OR aspects of this discussion here; it is misuse of the page. Please see WP:TALK. An example of proper use of this page would be if you forwarded a secondary source and we discussed if that secondary source met the standard here and how to accurately convey what the secondary source said. That is not what is happening hence my invitation to move the discussion to a less formal location. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, except for the fact that Wikipedia does not say "Never use primary sources!" It says that primary sources must be used with care, because often it takes specialist knowledge to interpret them correctly.  Are you going to defend the absurd and meritless premise that it would take specialist knowledge to decide that our hypothetical "dispose of the white people for the good of the world" movement is "supremacist?"  (And no, it is not "personal" about pointing out when your arguments are absurd and meritless.) -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment::This is a good point actually. I think the sections categorizing by anything other than Alphabetical should be deleted. Any opf the religions listed here in any position can be contended, using primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, all arguing a different POV. Ie. Technopagan isn't even a true religious philosophy, but rather a way of looking at Paganism. Westboro Baptist can not be declared supremancist using tertiary sources, or even secondary sources. It declares itself as such, much as Scientology does. Neo-Paganism should be merged with Wicca, since Wicca really is a form of Neo-Pagansim. The list can go on and on. So, in reality anything but an alpabetical list violates WP:OR, WP:NPOV, among other thing. There are no reliable secondary sources stating Occult Nazism is supremacist that I can find; Westboro Baptist' article is riddled with primary source materials being cited, etc. SO, in summary, maybe this whole article is in need of re-write to just be a alphabetical listing, excluding scientology as a whole, since numerous judgments have ruled it not to be a religion. Taking this into context, listing Scientology as a religion is considered a rather US Centric Opinion, violating NPOV Groupsisxty (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - I have removed the disputed inclusion pending the outcome of this RfC. Please do not reinsert disputed material. Further, numerous experienced Wikipedians have already weighed in here and on WP:ANI re the unacceptable OR nature of the inclusion and one admin went so far as to warn that blocks may be issued for "repeated addition of such material". So chill please and let the RfC run its course. Cheers. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE - I have removed the entire Supremacist section, due to the entire section being in violation of WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. I think discussion should now lean towards removing any categorizations, other than Alphabetic. Groupsisxty (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of that category and I would go further and suggest that all the subcategories under 1.3 Western be removed and that 1.3 Western be simply merged back to the "Regional" section. I think that the mentioned subcategories are way too open to interpretation, OR, and POV issues in a manner that the other categories are not so subject. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: - Actually it would be best if every single entry on this list were backed up to at least one secondary source that satisfies WP:RS and WP:V. This page in general needs a lot of work with respect to sourcing all the unsourced entries (which is the majority of the list). Specifically in this case, and in general, POV interpretations from primary sources should be avoided. As far as this particular RfC, I echo the statement made above by . Cirt (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment To simplify this, due to the amount of materials that could point either way with a lot of them, maybe this should be reduced to an alphabetics list of NRM, since at least we have a RS defining NEW.Groupsisxty (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed scientology from the list, due it being a US centric view of it being a religion, only having recognition in the US and a couple of other countries. Specifically has been ruled to not be a religion in the majority of countries is has presented it's case.  With a case as large as this, it's a very likely candidate to be moved from religion to pseudo sciences. Groupsisxty (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Scientology as a state-recognized religion and please stop the POV-pushing. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see, according that that article, France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Russia, Switzerland, etc say it isn't whereas as only 6 or so are cited a a religion, hence my stance as it being a largely US Centric viewpoint. Groupsisxty (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"As the student aspires to be HPA (Hubbard Professional Auditor) it is impressed on him that he is now a superior type of person who is leaving behind mundane considerations which preoccupy the despised homo sapiens'. Advancement and success are dependent on the complete acceptance of scientology theory. Before commencing the professional courses (i.e., above HAS) one necessary qualification is "Complete subjective and objective reality on the entire scope of the Science of Scientology." This involves accepting without question or reservation-or what is called "cogniting" upon-not only those items of scientology theory mentioned in this Report but much similar additional material." - Anderson Report,Ch. 12, pg 83 http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/ar12.html unless we go the road of migrating Scientology into the Psuedoscience arena, rather than religion (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to to re-present this citation, as it may have been lost in the mix. This is a reliable, second party source, which states in my opinion, the definite inclusion as scientology being a racists religion.

Comment in support of inclusion. We have here an academic report; a government (of Germany) report, and law; the words of a former member of the CoS, and a MSM news report (though from FOX). Taken together, I think the burden of secondary sources has been met, I note that Justall has not sought to explain why such sources have no merit, but to argue over and over that we don't understand the CoS or that it's all OR/SYNTH/PRIMARYSOURCES violations. It isn't. There is a second issue as to whether or not to include the entire sublist 'supremacist religions' or any sublists at all. That should be decided AFTER this, at a later time, in a separate RfC. This is not the place to conflate the two arguments. ThuranX (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made a number of arguments against inclusion other than the basic one that this is OR. Please see my "selected arguments for inclusion". I just read again the so-called secondary sources that you reference and fail to see how any of them argue that Scientology is a "supremacist" religion, i.e. "an academic report" - since when is some biased website an "academic report" worth of being used as a source here? Maybe I am not looking at the right thing but I see no published academic report that supports your claim; "a government (of Germany) report" - Germany considers Scientology anti-Democratic and a danger to its members. How do you get "supremacist" out of that? WP:OR, that is how; "the words of a former member of the CoS" - an ex-member says Scientology is anti-gay? How is that anecdote a reliable source and, again, what does that have to do with "supremacist"; "a MSM news report" - repeats what I have said over and over. Scientologists think that the application of Scientology brings about a higher state of ability. So what? That is a common claim made by many groups and is not what we are talking about when we say "supremacist". "Taken together" you say. Right, taken together and interpreted the way you please, you mean. The very definition of OR synthesis and based on questionable sources, no less. I suggest you take another look and apply a bit more rigor as an experienced Wikipedian. Cheers. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment in support of inclusion I agree with ThuranX on both accounts. It is hard to assume good faith when you see someone turning a blind eye to the natural weight of sources that otherwise would be acceptable, contorting them into differences of opinion instead of what they are - supportive evidence. If we wish to be balanced in our NPV, we should simply list it as "Supremacist" because it is considered by many as such, and include evidence (references) both for and against the label. Isn't that what WP is all about?

Additional agrument: The testimonies of ex-members of an alleged cult must NEVER be assumed discredible on grounds of so-called apostacy, on the real possibility that current members are not allowed or capable of self-criticism, and therefore may present an even more biased view than usual, potentially leaving ex-members as the only reasonably accurate inside source of information.

Note on consideration of Scientology statements and texts: Official proclaimations of an organization have weight, but are not conclusive, as they can be PR for its own sake. On the other hand, every utterance of someone like Hubbard who wrote endlessly his whole life may not consititute dogma and represent to overall tenor of the existing organization. That is why testimonials on what is actually practiced cannot be excluded from the discussion - and article. Venus Copernicus (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As you seem to addressing my remarks let me say that first, I never said we should discredit the testimony of an ex-member. I simply said it was anecdotal and not a reliable source for the purposes of this project. Which it is. As an aside, we do not know the full story there, just his side. I have seen other stories that paint a different picture. On the subject of being gay what would really carry weight is any policy that discriminates against gays in Scientology and that does just not exist. And repeating that Hubbard called being gay a sexual perversion is meaningless as that was the clinical norm in the time he wrote it (Richard von Krafft-Ebing. You do understand the valid point that Hubbard wrote and said a lot of things and some or many of those things have little bearing on what Scientology is or how it is practiced. What Scientology is and how it is practiced is covered in Hubbard's Technical Bulletins (HCOBs) and, to a lesser extent, in his Policy Letters (HCOPLs). Find me one of those that support your supremacist claim and we can talk (my guess is that all you can come up with is that he wrote a special rundown for African natives - which only means that he thought they had something different to address). As far as the rest of your comment; well, you have the usual accusation of bad faith on my part and the usual push for a WP:OR interpretation - and a not very good one at that. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... As you seem to be addressing something that would have bearing on what is "Source" and "Not Source". That is most definitley WP:OR, as the Church of Scientology states you can not change the doctrines that L. Ron Hubbard laid forth.  To inlcude antiquated beliefs which were the norm of the time.  And anything else is "Squirelling The Tech" (HCOPL HCO of 7 February 1965) so to speak.  So, to counterpoint, anything in a policy letter (ie the Policy of the S. African Natives being inferior), or the book "Science of Survival" where is states Zulus are inferior are in fact Dogmatic to the Church of Scientology. Groupsisxty (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No further comment on your arguing with a 30-year Scientologist about what is or is not "squirreling" or what is or is not Scientology "doctrine". All you guys have is Hubbard saying "bad people are bad but Scientology can make them all good." That is not called "supremacism"; that is called "religion". This goes round and round but the simple simple point is that you do not have reliable secondary sources on the point. I say that is because it is not a valid point but no-one has to agree with me on that. All I need is the recognition that the sources are not out there. It does not matter how many internet critics of Scientology chime in here that Scientology is baaad. They need to read the quote on my talk page. Scientology is not baaad; people doing bad things in the name of Scientology are, well, if not bad then at least misguided. Kinda like Anonymous. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We also have Hubbard stating "Zulu's are insane" and "homosexuals are physically ill". And if Scientology prescribes people doing bad things (ie Fair Game, The doing away with of Undesirables) then it is bad.  But being bad wasn't at issue.  It being supremacists is. Groupsisxty (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But being bad wasn't at issue. Exactly. And they (we) are not "supremacists" in any manner that would be covered by that category of the list. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Except of course the denigration of S. Africans and the Zulu Nation, as well as homosexuals. Groupsisxty (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Off-topic (our personal and non-notable discussion of what Hubbard was talking about) but I already covered those just a couple posts above. Like I said, this goes round and round. I will not address those points again. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I re-added Scientology to list, since consensus showed a move towards it, and citing 4 secondary sources.Groupsisxty (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previously uninvolved RFC comment. You must find a reliable source that describes them as such. This unflattering reading of primary sources is utterly verbooten by our policies. Cool Hand Luke 19:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Recap
Since Groupsisxty has decided to add the disputed material back in, let's recap the comments here:
 * Oppose inclusion
 * Oppose inclusion --Justallofthem (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion unless a reliable secondary source is produced which describes Scientology as "supremacist". (I don't think we have satisfied that but I will check with the OP - Justallofthem) -- S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Many religions have history or founders that state unscientific views about race. Unless it is a mjor part of the belief, it is not a "Supremacist religion". Racial sterotyping is all over the bible! Without a RS stating it is supremacist, it must not be called so here.Yobmod (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per RFC comment immediately above. Cool Hand Luke 19:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as original research and trolling, considering the tone of off-site discussion by the editors. WillOakland (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unless direct verbiage utilizing the term "Supremacist" in this context by WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources is provided. Cirt (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion
 * For Inclusion --Groupsisxty (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment in support of inclusion. --ThuranX (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment in support of inclusion. --Venus Copernicus (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For Inclusion --Shiialso weighed in.Groupsisxty (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Acually he did not say the above (unless I missed it). He offered a reference but did not voice an opinion. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That is how I see it so far. Hardly consensus. Others have added information but not !voted and that is good as, given the off-wiki canvassing issue already discussed on WP:ANI, it would be best if new and unregistered editors did not attempt to vote-stack the debate. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed my comment from above - because I would prefer it if my comments were not used on talkpages in other locations without allowing me first the opportunity to comment on my own in a new subsection. Cirt (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For Inclusion--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Supports inclusion It's fact, isn't that what Wikipedia keeps? 84.9.236.80 (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was actually added by myself. Groupsisxty (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Ok, after looking for refs to back up most of the other listed religions, the term supremacist is a very hard one to find in academic literature. But, in the case of Westboro, nothing can be found, even though we know it to be so, same as Nation of Islam, Nazi Esoteric.  So, I propose, in the ideal of consensus, and making a better WP, propose a section as below, with all of the religions properly referenced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements#Proposal_for_Consensus 72.65.0.218 (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading into the sources a bit too much
- I removed Church of Scientology from the "Supremacist" subsection after taking a look at the cited sources. In my opinion there is a bit too much reading into these sources going on here. To essentially make the claim "Scientology is a Supremacist new religious movement" - (which I am not making here one way or the other, just speaking to an analysis of the sources) - to make that type of a claim, essentially it would be best to have at least 2 secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources saying "Scientology is X..." as opposed to individual Wikipedia users drawing inferences from sources. That is my take. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What we have here appears to be definitve proof that Wikipedia does not work. The 'for' outweighs the 'against', IMH 4 clearly secondary sources have been cited (from Wiki: Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.[3] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims), and yet CoS is still not listed as supremacist. STILL no action has been taken against justallofthem for starting the edit war in the first place. And as a Wikipedia user I find the comment made by justallofthem ("given the off-wiki canvassing issue already discussed on WP:ANI, it would be best if new and unregistered editors did not attempt to vote-stack the debate") grossly offensive. Every Wikipedia user who comes across this article should be entitled to a say in this matter, and it is not justallofthem's place to decide this. The off-wiki canvassing which justallofthem mentioned has ceased (plus it was him who started the whole thing), and is irrelevant. justallofthem's argument suggests that any vote against his POV will definitely be down to fair play, when in fact they could just as easily be from people who have no connection with Anonymous. I used to hold Wikipedia in very high esteem, I often recommended it to others on a regular basis, however I am now rethinking that policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Moxon (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

IMPORTANT message to Wiki Admins: 'justallofthem' is most likely an "OSAbot". For those not familiar with the term, it means someone who is employed by the OSA to seek out anything in the media which reflects negatively on CoS and either alter or, if that is not possible, discredit it. It was supected by us that justallofthem was alerted to CoS' classification as 'UFO based' and 'supremacist' in this article due to him 'lurking' on the Enturbulation website and spotting a thread which mentioned this article (he himself linked to this thread, though as has been pointed out by other users here, the purpose of that thread was NOT to start an 'off-Wiki' edit campaign.) Enturbulation recently became interested in this article following threats and verbal abuse by a member of the 'Church', someone who is heavily involved with the subject of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peephole_TV&action=history (direct link to edit history, to prove a point further on). Again, I stress that this article was found and linked to on Enturbulation for informative purposes material/background on a certain individual, not to start edit wars. '''So it's funny then how, not long after this article was 'flagged up' on Enturbulation, justallofthem appears on the edit history; especially significant is the fact that this article, on 'Peephole TV', had no visible connection to CoS, there is only one way someone could have known there was a Scientology connection, and that is by reading the threads on Enturbulation. justallofthem is obviously lurking on Enturbulation and getting 'leads' from there, and in this case one of his primary goals seems to be to seek out Wikipedia articles which reflect badly on CoS and alter them, and in that way cause trouble on Wikipedia and blame it on Anonymous...typical CoS tactics. I hope that Wiki admins recognise this and take the appropriate action.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Moxon (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, I merely wondered if the Peephole article met notability guidelines and asked that such notability be shown. Don't get your panties in a bunch, I did nothing the least bit wrong. Anyway, that is not an article I would care to edit. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither primary nor secondary sources must be interpreted in any way. Therefore the article shouldn't say something is supremacist unless an RS plainly says so. That is, any reasonably intelligent reader who looks up the citation will agree that it does indeed say what is claimed. Anything else is OR. Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from an Admin
I've just stumbled across this, and have a statements for any Anti-Scientologists: I think, perhaps, that although is a Scientologist, and even if he is from the Office of Special Affairs, he is staying within the rules. Editing on behalf of an external organisation is not encouraged, but we really require concrete proof of such to do anything about it, which we don't have. Our policy is to assume good faith - and thus you must assume that he isn't OSA unless you have a damned good reason to assume otherwise. If any of you want to contact me privately regarding this to explain exactly what you think is happening, please e-mail me using the link on the right. Your e-mail address will not be disclosed to me, and I'll help all I can in answering your questions and concerns, and will explain what safeguards Wikipedia has in place to stop anyone from the OSA, or any other organisation (including Enturbulation!), from skewing things. Equally, please do not get all tin-hatty. If you have evidence to support your claims, we can act on them. As it is, however, we're not blocking anyone yet. Assume good faith, and contact me if you have any concerns. I'm in the RN, and thus honour-bound to be impartial when it comes to religions. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pappula
Pappula is surname —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshpappula (talk • contribs) 07:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit protect request
undefined Please remove the entire "Supremacist" subsection from this article, as it is wholly unsourced and contentious, (Per WP:V - Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.). Cirt (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I propose that all groups listed here are removed if they are without cites saying they are supremacist. As Justallofthem has mentioned about Scientology none of these other groups have cites showing them to be supremacist that scientology doesn't, why should this group be have to be shown to such a level of proof when the others do not. As Justallofthem has stated, just because it is self evident that a group is supremacist is not a enought reason to include it. Can anyone show why any of these groups should be included if one particular group is excluded? Felixmeister (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I would do it myself except I've already weighed in here. This section may be replaced someday with something comparable (see above), but until then it is, as Cirt says, highly inflammatory material that should be removed per WP:V. Cool Hand Luke 21:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This List Should Be Merged Back Into Wikipedia's "List Of Religions"
This list should be merged with the List of Religions as it was originally. It is clear that there is no definition of new religious movement on which to base this list that meets consensus even among experts. One is compelled to ask why this list was ever splintered from the List of Religions in the first place? It seems to do Wikipedia users a disservice in that it makes it unnecessarily confusing and difficult to find the information they are looking for. If Wikipedia users are looking for major established religions there is already the listing provided by World Religions. TR166ER (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the list of religions it seems clear that the entire section titled Neopaganism should be moved to this the list of new religious movements. In order to keep from confusing Wikipedia users I will effect this change while still preferring that the list of new religous movements be put back in with the list of religions. TR166ER (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again though I belive that Wikipedia patrons were better served when this sub-list was part of a complete list of religions parody religions are more logically listed here because of their recent origins. TR166ER (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have argued at Talk:List of religions and spiritual traditions that I think a re-merge is not the right thing to do. But I am open to being convinced. Important, however, is that if a merge happens, it cannot possibly be (it seems to me) that every group currently listed in List of new religious movements would survive the merge. This may mean that a better approach is to allow List of religions and spiritual traditions to include the more important or larger categories and groups, with a pointer to this page, which can continue to be a comprehensive list. Tb (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would contend that a re-merge or a re-write is a sensible thing at this point. Any categorization other than alphabetic would be OR or POV.  Groupsisxty (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support a remerge or rewrite, as well. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think a remerge is appropriate, but most certainly support a good scrubbing/rewrite/cleanup to a pure alphabetical format, and get rid of all of the other types of subsections. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to revamp as alphabetical list.
This has been mentioned before but let's put it in a new topic. The proposal is that we remove ALL the categories and simply list NRM's alphabetically. This will dispose of most of the problems that the current format is prone to. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - as nom. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the only portion of this list which has been contentious is that of supremacist, the rest are derieved from the doctrine or teachings of the faiths themselves. Felixmeister (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Opposed - We can not use the teachings of the religions themselves as a criterion for categorization. That is WP:OR, however, an encyclopedia of knowledge has to contain WP:OR at some point (ie categorizations).  Take a look at most Encyclopedias.  Most articles are written by a single, authoritative person on the subject, and no WP:RS.  Non-WP:OR tells a winner's tale, which is not always correct.  In fact, there is only one listing here that is contended, and that is Scientology; which placement in any spot that doesn't give it a positive light will be forever contended by members, in accordance with KSW and the multitude of doctrinal policies which govern (ie "Never defend, always fight", "anyone critical of scientology is a criminal", "anyone below 2.0 on the tone scale should be done away with quietly and without sorrow"). 72.65.0.218 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Disregarding your soap-boxing and violation of WP:AGF, you are failing to understand the basic nature of Wikipedia and how it differs from a traditional encyclopedia - as an encyclopedia that can be edited by "anyone" Wikipedia does not necessarily have any "authoritative person on the subject" writing any given article and even if it did that person or persons would be countered, and usually out-numbered, by those "self-educated" sorts that think their one-sided bit of knowledge and misinterpretation constitutes the whole of a subject. That is why we have a No Original Research policy. And at least my soap-boxing is relevant. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF, firstly he/she said most, and this does seem to be true, just because anyone can edit doesn't mean anyone does, and most edits are minor corrections to articles which were written by an authoritative person on the subject. And I think his point is valid and does not seem to be be violating WP:AGF, the commentry is directed at members of scientology not wikipedia editors to assume otherwise is to be violating WP:AGF. Felixmeister (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, I didn't even vote one way or another, and you attack me, rather than defend the points by referring to my comment as "soapboxing", then in the same cheek describe your "soapboxing" as "relevant". No, the list should not be reduced to an alphabetic list.  This would degrade rather than improve WP. And how do you know I was self-educated, rather than working for, I don't know, David Miscavige himself, or being an officer for the RTC, or even one in Bridge Pubs? 72.65.0.218 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also please WP:AGF, Justallofthem was not refering to you specifically but those people who educate themselves and then proclaim to know more and understand more than an editor who has studied the subject at an academic institution (university etc) Felixmeister (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral. But we need specific criteria for what is included on the page and what is not.  The Jade Knight (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Using subheadings to categorize the religions is extremely useful. Otherwise, we may as well just use categories. I'm not sure whether there should be an "extremist" heading or not (I think probably not), but this problematic category is no reason to wipe out the lot of them. So I oppose this suggestion. Cool Hand Luke 23:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. As is, this list at present contains randomly chosen subsections and an alphabetical list anyways. Choose one method and go with it. The whole thing is one big unsourced mess, so at present it is just random Wikipedians saying what is or is not applicable to this list or particular subsection. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are these in section "Regional"?

 * Entheogenic
 * Technology-oriented
 * Extremist new religious movements
 * Parody or mock religions
 * Fictional religions turned Parody--Editor2020 (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The list needs some clean-up, a new sub-section to contain those sections. Groupsisxty (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved them to their own sections.--Editor2020 (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Change intro section
I think the current intro section is unclear and doesn't provide enough context, and should be changed to this information take from New religious movements. "Although there is no one criterion or set of criteria for describing a group as a "new religious movement," use of the term usually requires that the group be both of recent origin and different from existing religions. Debate surrounds the phrase "of recent origin": some authors use World War II as the dividing line after which anything is "new", whereas others define as "new" everything after the advent of the Bahá'í Faith (mid-19th century) or even everything after Sikhism (17th century)." Of course we need to mention that this list uses the 1945 cutoff date.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Waiting period on deletions in alphabetical section
I am requesting a waiting period for deletions to the alphabetical section of the article until we resolve the Cutoff Date issue. This will allow us to more easily repopulate the upper sections if we decide to use an earlier cutoff date.--Editor2020 (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. The one reservation I had about removing the categorizations was a loss of research that already went into categorizations.  Keeping them on the alphabetical list will ease re-population if needed, and once we get a reference point. - Groupsisxty (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Criteria?
For there to be a contentious list like this at Wikipedia, there should be clear criteria determining what will be included and not included in this article at Wikipedia; it may be fine for other sources to have their own conflicting accounts of what a "new religious movement" is, but at Wikipedia, we need a rule that we can follow. So, what's (or "what are", for those of you who care) the criteria? The Jade Knight (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think consensus is forming to revamp this to a simple alphabetical list and leave the editorializing (i.e. the categories) out of it. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You still need criteria for what is to be included and what excluded, however. The Jade Knight (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Any list article must have a clear objective criterion for inclusion. It's pretty unlikely there's a consensus of expert opinion, unless we take New Religious Movement to mean simply new religious movement, & include all notable groups founded since (fill in date as preferred). Peter jackson (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the header of the list has specific criteria for after what date, and what constitutes a religion. Most have WP:RS to support them as a religion. Groupsisxty (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The header has very vague criteria: "This list of new religious movements (NRMs), lists groups that either identify themselves as religious, ethical or spiritual organizations or are generally seen as such by religious scholars, which are independent of older denominations, churches, or religious bodies."
 * So, these are religious, ethical, or spiritual organizations; ok, in other words, these are religions. That much is specified.  Now what separates them from other religions?  They are "independent of older denominations, churches, or religious bodies".  What does that mean?  Lutheranism is "independent" of the Catholic Church, which is an older church.  You're going to need to be much more specific here, because I'm going to work for consistency in the article based on whatever the definition is.  The current definition would include virtually all known religions, as it is not specific enough.  The Jade Knight (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're beating a dead horse so to speak. In the archive this was already discussed a few months years back.  There was a definition that was more or less agreed upon from a resource, and it had stated "started from the 19th century onward" I believe.  Going to dig back through the archive to find it.Groupsisxty (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The historical bench-mark normally taken to divide new religions from old is the Second World War or shortly after. Thus Peter Clarke identifies his focus as 'those new religions that have emerged in Britain since 1945'. (Clarke, 1987, p 5.) Eileen Barker places the watershed slightly later when she writes,
 * Ok, three benchmark date are proposed by various heads in the field:

"The term new religious movement (NRM) is used to cover a disparate collection of organisations, most of which have emerged in their present form since the 1950s, and most of which offer some kind of answer to questions of a fundamental religious, spiritual or philosophical nature." (Barker, 1989, p 9).

Other scholars such as Melton and Moore suggest that although 'postwar' provides a definitional criterion the real mushrooming of new religious movements came in the 1960s and 1970s. (Melton and Moore, 1982; Beckford, 1985; Nelson, 1987.) - Excerpted from http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/diskus/chryssides.html

Many people think Eileen Barker's definition is too late, as well as Melton's; though all three hold merit. I would propose Clarke's; just because it is all-inclusive. Groupsisxty (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So, the list is, in essence, any religion which has emerged in its present form since 1945? Very well.  A few religions on the list will need to be removed, but at least now we have something more specific.  The Jade Knight (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the thing. Those are the only citations explicitly nailing down a date for a "New Religious Movement".  However, even Barker includes Mormonism as an example when discussing NRM's.  There's a reference in the intro that state anything after Sikhism, which tends to be where [most] scholars stop calling it an NRM (ie Encyclopedia Brittanica, World Book Encyclopedia  It's a touchy subject, because scholars are in the process of changing terminology from "cults" to "New Religious Movements" so a good citation is hard to come by.  So, at this point, stick with the "After Sikhism" currently in place, or cleanup the article to after 1945? Groupsisxty (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think consistency should be the idea, and the 1945 number is more clear-cut, especially when a great number of Christian religions are post-Sikhism. By choosing the 1945 date, you simplify things to make the list objective, you make it recent (it feels weird calling a 200-year old religion "new"), and you remove problems of inconsistency with including, say, Mormonism, but not, say, Seventh-Day Adventism.  The Jade Knight (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Groupsisxty (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading New religious movements and Shinshukyo, I think that 1945 is way too late. Especially since most of the original "Japanese New Religions", from which the term originated, will no longer qualify. Two hundred years is not long when considering social institutions like religion. I think using the cutoff of after Bahai, 1850 or so, is more practical and useful.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Most Christian religions are actually younger than 1850, however. So we'd have to include a great many more Christian religions if we take the 1850 date.  I, personally, think 1945 is a better date for the reasons given above.  Other opinions?  The Jade Knight (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Most recent Christian groups should not be included in the list at all, as they do not fit the criteria for NRMs, they are not different from existing religions. (Please see my comments in "Change intro section") --Editor2020 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to bet most Baptists would say they're different from Lutherans. You'll need to be more explicit as to what you mean by different from existing religions.  The Jade Knight (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean anything by it, I am simply repeating the criteria given in the "New Religious Movements" article. But logically, I think that it means "different enough from existing religions to be a New Religion". I'm pretty sure both Baptists and Methodists would say that they are Christian, and not New Religions.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So would the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. All consider themselves Christians.  This is why we need explicit criteria.  The Jade Knight (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

1945 Cutoff
Since the inclusion criteria now is post-1945, should I begin removing all groups founded prior to 1945?--Editor2020 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If so, we're going to lose a large portion of this list.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think yes, unless we can find a citation referring to the religion as a NRM. But, JMHO Groupsisxty (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To maintain consistency, we should have those which come before 1945, but which are sometimes referred to as NRMs, in their own section. That section should be 100% cited with recent reliable sources.  The Jade Knight (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If we include pre-1945 groups, we are back to effectively having no cutoff criteria, or being totally inconsistent in our application of the criteria. If the 1945 date doesn't work, and I think that it doesn't, we need to move back to a date that can be applied consistently.--Editor2020 (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true: If the general list is post-1945, and a separate section is created for "may be NRM's", which are all sourced with recent sources, then we have still significantly improved the article.  The Jade Knight (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So we are going to have a consistently applied, post-1945 cutoff date and include pre-1945 groups?--Editor2020 (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. We are going to have a consistently applied post-1945 cutoff date, and then, if we deem it worthwhile, we may have a separate section which discusses potential grey areas (ie, those which fail to meet the criteria but are still currently considered NRM's by reliable sources).  Make sense?  The Jade Knight (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Wouldn't it be more consistent and less confusing to just use an earlier cutoff date? Especially since the "special section" is probably going to be the largest section of the list.--Editor2020 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in my opinion; as it is, 60 years is a long period to consider things "new". Additionally, the 1945-date seems to be the most definitive and least arbitrary of our options.  Finally, the further back we go, the more of a mess this will be with more conflict over which established religions count as NRM's, and which do not.  But I would find it acceptable to leave out the "grey" category entirely.  The Jade Knight (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should leave the definition of an NRM at the New religious movements discussion page, and the determination of a groups status as an NRM at that individual groups discussion page, and include on this list only those groups that are in Category:New religious movements or Category:Shinshukyo.--Editor2020 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Extremist new religious movements

 * Westboro Baptist,


 * Creativity Movement


 * Nation of Islam


 * Esoteric Nazism


 * Nation of Yahweh


 * LaPorte Church of Christ


 * Kingdom Identity Minitries


 * Church of Jesus Christ-Christian


 * Church of Scientology
 * Responses:


 * Support - as creator Groupsisxty (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - More WP:OR and POV editing apparently designed simply to paint Scientology with a black brush. Let's not. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is less WP:OR than the other references listed. The Only real good reason to oppose is that scientology is not really a religion. Felixmeister (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, how can you suggest this is WP:OR? There are sources for each entry from reliable, secondary sources? Groupsisxty (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not looked into the sources yet, but does each source clearly state that they assert that the group listed is a "extremist religion" ? And also, shouldn't the subsection header be "Extremist new religious movements", due to the title of the list itself? Cirt (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, each source states explicitly "extremist" (Feel free to examine), but I figure the new part was covered by the major listing (New Religious Movements). Feel free to edit if that feels better. Groupsisxty (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as the current Supremacist subsection of this article is completely unsourced, I would support removing it and replacing it with "Extremist new religious movements" if there is consensus to do so. In any event there should most certainly be an effort to source all of the entries on this list, no matter in what subsection of the list they are in. Cirt (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Working on that :) I am somewhat of a theologian, and would like to see every entry sourced if it's contended. Working on another which is contended right now :D 05:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupsisxty (talk • contribs)
 * Ideally every single entry on the main list should be sourced, no matter if it is contentious or not. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose The term "Extremist" is inherently pejorative. All description and categorisation on Wikipedia must be neutral - and in case of controversy or doubt about how to describe any group, its description of itself should decide the matter. See WP:CAT and WP:NAME for related information.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 05:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Under that, wouldn't new be considered "pejorative"? I know many Wicca which would present this case, since it is based on over 2000 year old principles? Groupsisxty (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * brings up a good point, what if the very inclusion on this page, in any subsection at all, is deemed pejorative by the group in question because the group does not perceive itself to be a "New religious movement" ? Cirt (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose CoS' inclusion on the list. It uses the term "extremist" to employ citations to government reports, while citing otherwise racist groups. This gives the wrong impression, and is on the far side of OR. That said, the other listings are an improvement on the current section, which has no citations at all. Cool Hand Luke 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But none of those citations state the groups are racist, rather extremist groups. Groupsisxty (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support for pretty much the same reasons as ShadowVsScientology. --DevilSavior (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support All organisations listed are refered to as extremist in the cites provided. Simple really. Felixmeister (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Scientology is definitely an extremist group as exemplified by the methods it deals with its members, ex-members and critics. (In some cases bordering on a terrorist group.).--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose User:SheffieldSteel is completely correct. This section would be a constantly contentious list of "groups I don't like."--Editor2020 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Recap
Seems to have a consensus support. Ok to move to article? Groupsisxty (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 4-3 = No consensus one way or the other. I'd be uncomfortable with you calling that consensus.  The Jade Knight (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see your point, so rather than in favor of consensus, ok to move based on improvement to the article (Section is cited much better than any other section on the page). Groupsisxty (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Now it is 5-3 in favor. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing Scientology from "extremist"
I have removed the following bit for a number of reasons that boil down to the fact that it is based on very dubious sourcing and is seeking to forward a position in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR."Church of Scientology Because of its experiences during the Nazi regime, Germany has a special responsibility to monitor the development of any extreme group within its borders -- even when the group's members are small in number. Given the indisputable evidence that the Scientology organization has repeatedly attempted to interfere with the American government and has harmed individuals within Germany, the German federal government has responded in a very measured legal fashion to the Scientology organization. On June 6, 1997, Federal and State Ministers of the Interior asked the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz) to formally investigate several activities of the Scientology organization and make a report. The published report presented October 12, 1998, found that while 'the Scientology organization agenda and activities are marked by objectives that are fundamentally and permanently directed at abolishing the free democratic basic order,' additional time is needed to conclusively evaluate the Scientology organization. The ministers approved this request for more time.' - http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/germany/germany21.html, Para. 9 Bavarian State Ministry of the Interior Consitutional Security Information, 2005, Section 4.1 - Leftist Extremist Memorandum to the Greek Parlimentary Committee on Instiutionxs and Transparency, 'The Political and Social Corrossion Covert Activity of the Scientology Extremist Cult', Cover Page"First off, if you actually look up that Greek reference it is very dubious looking, polemic and perhaps self-published; it does not look like a reliable source to me. As far as the German bit is concerned there are a number of problems with that. First is the translation issue - we are dealing with terminology here when we seek to label Scientology an "extremist group" in the English or American meaning of the word and it leans toward WP:OR to translate other languages to come up with that designation. Secondly, the fact that a group is being monitored by a department concerned with, say, criminal activity, does not make the group "criminal". Being monitored by some department of the German gov't does not make Scientology "extremist" in any manner that would meet adequate sourcing requirements. Finally, even if we were to grant that Germany considers Scientology an "extremist organization" (and I am not granting that without more concrete proof than has been offered) we still have the case that Germany has a minority view in that sense. Other gov'ts may have issues with Scientology but not that it is an "extremist organization". In summary, a dubious, poorly-sourced, and at best minority view, is being pushed here to forward a POV and that is not what Wikipedia is for. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I already said this before above - it is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine what is or is not "extremist". Rather, the burden should be on those editors wishing to add this sort of material, to find sources specifically mentioning a particular group as "extremist", and ideally in secondary, not primary, sources that satisfy WP:RS/WP:V. This particular source cited above does appear to be bordering on WP:OR - didn't we already have a WP:RfC about this above? Cirt (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm, actually the Memorandum to the Greek Parlimentary Committee seems satisfactory as it is pretty explicit with the title, but would need better WP:V on that one, and as mentioned above translation is also something to be considered. Cirt (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt that carries any official meaning or represents the opinion of anyone in the Greek gov't. My take on it is that someone wrote a paper and sent it to the Parliament. I imagine that I could do the same - does not make it mean anything. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would take very strong sourcing indeed to put a group under a one-word blanket such as this. The litmus test is would you put this in the lede of the main article. I seriously doubt that anyone would consider the sourcing strong enough for that. Yet that is the equivalent of what is being proposed here. Yes, one of the German Länder does hold this opinion of Scientology and that could be and should be mentioned in the main article where it can be put in the context of being one (minority) opinion; minority even among German states. It is not sufficient sourcing for what is hoped for here - to include Scientology under a very negative banner. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears from the article history that a positive edit was being made, namely removing the WP:OR-type stuff from that above cite and only retaining those 2 sources with explicit mention of "extremist" which are - Bavarian State Ministry of the Interior Consitutional Security Information, 2005, Section 4.1 - Leftist Extremist and Memorandum to the Greek Parlimentary Committee on Instiutionxs and Transparency, "The Political and Social Corrossion Covert Activity of the Scientology Extremist Cult", Cover Page, both are primary source government documents, but they seem to be verifiable and go to the term "extremist". At this point another WP:RfC on this particular issue would be appropriate. I will ask again - in addition to these sources, has this been discussed in any secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a report titled saying it's extremist, it's listed under the leftist-extremist section in another report, and the German Government officiating a stance that it's observing this group as an extremist group. How is this anymore WP:SOAP, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV than any other listing here?  Why don't we work towards improving this article rather than trash it?  No other editor coming to this page has had this many problems working towards sourcing this list, trimmming, and cleaning it.  User:Justallofthem which has been sanctioned from Scientology related articles once already comes and creates almost 3 pages of argument to listing scientology in one section or another.  It's the most sourced entry on this list ffs! I saw this pop back on my watch page, and had to stop from the other research for sourcing the rest of the list to fight this battle once again, after it's conclusion. And no offense User:Cirt but how are research reports considered primary sources?  Research reports are secondary, not primary sources. Groupsisxty (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disturb you ;) And that bit about me being "sanctioned" leans toward an ad hominem attack, doncha think? And seems a bit incongruous with your complaining about bickering. But enough of that. I made my arguments and I think they are compelling and stand on their own. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * my question is if these are reports produced by a government agency, or a particular individual doing research for a government agency, or a non-governmental agency that then provides support to the government - more information on the nature of these reports would be very helpful in this discussion. And to secondary sources - have these reports, or use of the term "extremist" in reference to this organization - been discussed in any books, newspapers or other periodicals, or academic journals? Cirt (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Greek thing looks like "none of the above"; the German Federal quote itself says "additional time is needed to conclusively evaluate the Scientology organization"; and the one German State does hate Scientology but that is not sufficient for this overarching (mis)characterization. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There seem to be more than adequate sources for Scientology to be included as Extremist, and the claim that Scientology is pre-1945 is blatantly false. The Jade Knight (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the heading to "ethnic supremacist" because I thought that offered more information to the reader. I know that many, especially in Europe, consider Scientology to be a dangerous cult, and perhaps it is, but extremist seems very odd to someone who only knows a little about it. Extremist organisations, in the usual understanding, are trying to change the world in a particular direction. Is scientology extremist on the political Left or Right? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources for "extremist"
Please discuss in the above subsection, would rather just keep this as an intact list of sources here, not interspersed with comments. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "This view of Scientology's message inspires mistrust especially in Germany, where it is considered an 'extremist political movement' (Deutscher Bundestag, 1998, p.230)." (Richardson)
 * Full citation for the source given by Richardson:
 * Deutscher Bundestag (1998) Final Report of the Enquete Commission on 'So-Called Sects and Psychogroups, (trans. by W. Fehlberg and M. Ulloa-Fehlberg). Bonn: Deutscher Bundestag.
 * "Similar questions have been raised recently concerning extremist religious cults, such as Scientology and the Unification Church, in America and elsewhere." (Lifton)
 * "The commission contended that there were concrete indications that Scientology was a political extremist organization". (United States Department of State) -- I believe this is referring to the same report that Richardson refers to, above.
 * "In its conclusion, the Commission stated that sects and psychogroups do not represent any danger to the democratic state, which basically corresponds to the conclusions drawn out by a Parliamentary Enquiry Commission in the Netherlands in 1984. However, a special provision concerned the Scientology organization which the Commission did not consider a religious denomination, but rather, as they phrased it, a "political-extremist" movement. This is why an extension of its observation by the Constitutional Defence Office was requested by the Commission. (United States Congress)
 * "The commission contended that there were concrete indications that Scientology was a political extremist organization". (United States Department of State) -- I believe this is referring to the same report that Richardson refers to, above.
 * "In its conclusion, the Commission stated that sects and psychogroups do not represent any danger to the democratic state, which basically corresponds to the conclusions drawn out by a Parliamentary Enquiry Commission in the Netherlands in 1984. However, a special provision concerned the Scientology organization which the Commission did not consider a religious denomination, but rather, as they phrased it, a "political-extremist" movement. This is why an extension of its observation by the Constitutional Defence Office was requested by the Commission. (United States Congress)
 * "In its conclusion, the Commission stated that sects and psychogroups do not represent any danger to the democratic state, which basically corresponds to the conclusions drawn out by a Parliamentary Enquiry Commission in the Netherlands in 1984. However, a special provision concerned the Scientology organization which the Commission did not consider a religious denomination, but rather, as they phrased it, a "political-extremist" movement. This is why an extension of its observation by the Constitutional Defence Office was requested by the Commission. (United States Congress)
 * "In its conclusion, the Commission stated that sects and psychogroups do not represent any danger to the democratic state, which basically corresponds to the conclusions drawn out by a Parliamentary Enquiry Commission in the Netherlands in 1984. However, a special provision concerned the Scientology organization which the Commission did not consider a religious denomination, but rather, as they phrased it, a "political-extremist" movement. This is why an extension of its observation by the Constitutional Defence Office was requested by the Commission. (United States Congress)

My 2c. (having seen this query at WP:RSN... I'd just get rid of the subheading "Extremist." Two of the three/four groups currently in this category seem clearly to deserve the label, but pretty soon, as with Scientology, you hit controversy.  I feel pretty sure you could find reliable sources calling everything from Mormonism to the Southern Baptists extremists.  In a list of this nature, there's not much room for the kind of judicious counter-balancing of sources that is needed on Wikipedia, in which you would make clear that there are some reliable sources that do describe (in this case) Scientology as extremists, and others not.  Again, I'd just get rid of the subheading.  It's a hostage to fortune.  These issues can (and should) be raised with the requisite regard for due weight at Scientology.

(For what it's worth, I'd probably get rid of this page altogether, as it's not obviously doing anything a Category could do, but that's another issue altogether.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This recent change seems to have done the trick. I do still wonder if it's worth having so many small subsections.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, most of those US sources seem to be commenting on the German report. We already know that Germany holds a minority view of Scientology as extremist. This list is not the place to list minority views. I agree with Jbmurray as to getting rid of the subheading. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that Germany, France and others hold the view that Scientology is fraudulent is not in doubt but the use of the term 'minority view' is I feel WP:POV. Felixmeister (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You make my point for me. "Fraudulent" not equal "extremist". AFAIK, only Germany, and mainly one German state in particular, holds the view that Scientology is "extremist". i.e. a threat to the democracy. That is the minority view. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I had meant to say Extremist and Fraudulent (Spain and England included), second if you like you could create a fraudulent category, third the view that scientology is a good and noble organistaion is held pretty much by scientologists alone - itself a minority view. Felixmeister (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not the one that is highly attached to this particular subsection either being included or excluded. I am more of the mind that the list itself is not up to Wikipedia standards, in general, as far as sourcing. Cirt (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree to this. The Jade Knight (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

England holds the view that scientology is a dangerous cult and is a fraudulent organization. Germany, that scientology is not a church but an extremist organization. That is NOT a minority view, as there never has been an election by countries on that matter. Not mentioned by the protagonists for the cult is that scientology is banned in the PRC and Greece. It is documentable that scientology is an extremist group and is fraudulent. Those categories should be noted in this article.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent Change
Is there any objection to Itsmejudith's change from "Extremist" to "Ethnic supremacist"? Lets not forget that there is a good reason why "extremist" is on the list of words to avoid. If there is no objection to this change then the discussion about Scientology is mute. Scientology is not part of the mainstream anywhere, and various negative reactions to it could be described in a variety of ways. The particular notion of "extremist" seems to come only from Germany, a country that it should be noted has a primary language that is not English. There may be other ways to classify groups like Scientology that are much more accurate. This particular issue seems settled to me.PelleSmith (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Scientology is also considered extremist by the Swiss Federal Police. Ethnic supremacist is not accurate as a description of scientology.  Supremacist by itself would be accurate.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ethnic supremacist is not accurate at all for Scientology but Scientology is not included in that section if you will notice.PelleSmith (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Change intro section
In September I posted the following on the discussion page. I never received any reply, which I will interpret as a lack of opposition.
 * "I think the current intro section is unclear and doesn't provide enough context, and should be changed to this information taken from New religious movements.
 * "Although there is no one criterion or set of criteria for describing a group as a "new religious movement," use of the term usually requires that the group be both of recent origin and different from existing religions.
 * Debate surrounds the phrase "of recent origin": some authors use World War II as the dividing line after which anything is "new", whereas others define as "new" everything after the advent of the Bahá'í Faith (mid-19th century) or even everything after Sikhism (17th century)."--Editor2020 (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What is your suggestion? The Jade Knight (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To implement that change, of course (which I have done). This was the explanation for that edit.--Editor2020 (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see. I consider it an improvement, myself.  The Jade Knight (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The path of the One
The path of the One is an alternative name for Matrixism. It is also concise and seeing as how people might look for the religion by that name it should be included after the word Matrixism similar to the way other organizations with alternative names are listed. 71.113.88.249 (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed Matrixism as not notable.
User 71.113.88.249 has brought to my attention that the article Matrixism has been replaced by a redirect to a section of The Matrix (series) article (and not even its own section). Since this list is only for groups which are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and this group no longer has an article, I have removed it.--Editor2020 (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you are getting your standard of what is considered notable but clearly Matrixism: The path of the One is notable by Wikipedia standards as is evidenced by what is already in Wikipedia on the subject. Therefore I have returned Matrixism: The path of the One to the list. 71.113.88.249 (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Not every group mentioned in Wikipedia articles thereby becomes notable. It is evidently not notable enough to have an article. Anyone else have an opinion?--Editor2020 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is something like a hoax. It's been added over and over again. There's no evidence that this "religion" actually has any followers. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? There are several articles that indicate how many followers of Matrixism there are. 71.113.88.249 (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actual followers, not folks who signed up to receive emails. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your POV aside the followers of Matrixism as well the religion itself are documented. 71.113.88.249 (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is for movements that have Wikipedia articles. As Matrixism does not, it does not belong on this list. --Leivick (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not a criteria to make this list. Matrixism is clearly notable by Wikipedia standards as evidenced by its thoroughly cited entry in Wikipedia. 71.113.88.249 (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please direct us to this "thoroughly cited entry", and the "several articles that indicate how many followers of Matrixism there are."--Editor2020 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Neo-paganism
I think the individual listings under "Neo-paganism" should be removed, leaving just the section heading and the link to List of Neopagan movements. --Editor2020 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Consensus- change 'Ethnic Supremacist' back to 'Supremacist'
In my opinion, I believe the aforementioned category should be changed back to its previous form before the debate over whether or not Scientology should be included. A quick recap for those not familiar with the case, it was argued that Scientology should be included under the 'Supremacist' catgory, due to their views on them being 'Homo Novis', ie a master race. Lack of useable secondary sources meant this could not happen, howver it was suggested that the heading be changed to 'Extremist' as this term applied to all the groups already in the category (whose presence there has NEVER been called into question), and Scientology could be added due to secondary sources that supported this (at the time, I argued that this should only be done if we were to include Scientology, otherwise there was no point in the change). The change was APPROVED BY CONSENSUS, however Scientology was removed once again by a disruptive editor.

'''My main concern however is that someone then changed the heading to 'Ethnic Supremacist' WITHOUT asking for consensus (this can be verified by checking the archived discussion/edit history), and we have lost a lot of undisputed groups from that category, which has quite frankly decimated the accuracy of the article.

I propose the heading be changed back to 'Supremacist', not including Scientology, but with all the orignal groups that were in there and backed up with correct sourcing REPLACED.'''The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

New religious movements
To Editor2020, you appear to keep an eye on List of new religious movements -- Partridge with 27 others has a book out on new religions that has a better categorization of them than in the Wiki category of new religions. Redoing the Wiki would be a lot of work but I may be able to help it a bit by adding 2 categories from Partridge - Western Esoteric and New Age and Modern Western Cultures. Several of the current categories would then go in these and permit adding several that have no category as of now. Is this OK with you?Jlrobertson (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's fine with me.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do65.26.156.212 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Jlrobertson (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's better to make these discussions open to everyone before you start making a major organization change, especially if the only change that is made is to pull the United States list into it's own category, which, whether that was the intention or not, appears to be saying that these are better/more important than the rest.


 * I'm not sure what is meant by the two terms that you have up there, a little more explanation would be helpful. - IanCheesman (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Singularitarianism
Should Singularitarianism be included? The main article for that list it as a moral philosophy based upon the belief that a technological singularity . This seems somewhat less than a relegion.--Salix (talk): 07:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing
My beloved Lewis book isn't available today, But I do have Eugene Gallagher's The New Religious Movements Experience in America, ISBN 0-313-32807-2, published by Greenwood Press, immediately available. Would being covered in a non-trivial way in such a book be considered sufficient evidence of the group in question being an NRM? John Carter (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, User:John Carter/List of new religious movements provides references for at least a few bodies being called NRMS. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question - yes, it would be sufficient. Cirt (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Change to pure alphabetical format
This list would be much easier to source, organize, and maintain - in a purely alphabetical structure. I propose we shift to a structure similar to User:John Carter/Alphabetical list of new religious movements. Cirt (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I could live with that, if for no other reason than inclusion of sections relevant to religion or trend can be at times misleading regarding groups which are somewhat syncretic in nature. Alternately, given the probable length of the final list, it might be possible to create two different lists, on alphabetical and one by grouping, as there are at least a few cases, like List of popes and List of popes (graphical), that are effectively the same material repeated in separate articles. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. We could (first) start on the alphabetical format (for this main list), and then on a topical or geographical format, for a secondary list. Cirt (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

✅. As there were no objections after this subsection has been here for a month, switched to pure alphabetical format. Also removed unsourced entries. Per WP:BURDEN, please do not add unsourced entries, instead WP:CITE new additions to sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Jediism a religion? Give me a break
I took Jediism off the list. It was a MOVIE for crying out loud! I saw and read an article about some police officers who claimed to have it as their religion, but please. How about common sense. Does that mean that George Lucas is like St. Peter or more like L Ron Hubbard? Well then again, I don't think Lucas intended to write a religion. This needs to be a little bit more rigorous. I don't know what is wierder: the Jedi people or the serious notion that it is a religion. Okay. I am done ranting. I hope it was at least a little humorous. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This will become a whole lot easier when every entry on the list is sourced to secondary sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V. It should not be up to Wikipedians to make the determination - but rather up to reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

New edit notice
Please read Template:Editnotices/Page/List of new religious movements, and take note accordingly. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reformatted to Notes/References format
Reformatted to Notes/References format, like this: and. Let's keep this formatting going forward. Cirt (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, and please don't think I am trying to cause problems, but why do we need to list references on this page? Each page that this list would link to should have their own group of references for each NRM.  So why do we need to repeat that info here? - IanCheesman (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it is a good question, there are many reasons. 1) The info might actually not be sourced at the sub article. 2) The sub article might have lower sourcing standards than this article, or be in a much poorer state of quality. 3) The sub article can change over time. etc. Cirt (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

New additions
Let us please keep the current Notes/References cite format for new additions. And please cite page numbers to the reference for each addition, not simply the name of a book. The group/movement may or may not be mentioned in the book, but that is does not in and of itself satisfy verifiability that it is specifically mentioned as a "new religious movement". Page numbers for each entry satisfy this - and the current Notes/References format makes it easier to do just that. Cirt (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nop problem, although I do note that each item I added to the List of new religious movements (alphabetical) had separate entires in the books which are indicated as references. The question becomes what to do with roughly 700 individual citations to date from the books for the entires already listed, as well as the rather larger number for groups currently at User:John Carter/Alphabetical list of new religious movements, which I haven't yet been able to verify have separate articles, at least under those names. I get the feeling these will add a lot of length to the article. John Carter (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, under the current format, there would only be a few additions to the References subsection, and a lot to the Notes subsection, which is perfect. Cirt (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Companies Don't Belong On This List
I took some time and looked at the references on the Landmark Education entry on this list and while there are two books that refer to it (I think obliquely) as NRM’s. Landmark is a self proclaimed company and from what I can see, all of the other organizations on this list are self-proclaimed religions. A company does not logically belong here and there are tons of sources that refer to Landmark as a corporation. Here are three that I found very easily with a simple web search.

Business Week http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4306402 COMPANY OVERVIEW “Landmark Education Corporation, an educational company, offers Landmark forum, graduate courses, and seminars. Landmark Education offers programs and curricula to individuals, organizations, communities, and institutions. In addition, it offers corporate consulting services. The company offers programs in both the public and private sectors. It serves the training and development industry. Landmark offers programs to customers in United States, Japan, Israel, India, Australia, South Africa, the Philippines, Mexico, and the European countries. The company was founded as Transnational Education Corporation in 1991 and changed its name to Landmark Education Corporation in May 1991. The company is based in San Francisco, California.”

New York Magazine http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/4932/index2.html “Sprawling over an entire floor of a skyscraper in San Francisco's financial district, with a half-dozen clocks for various time zones hanging over the receptionist's desk, the world headquarters of Landmark looks every bit the office of an information-age global corporation. Which, of course, it is.”

Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987975,00.html “Unlike Erhard, est is still around--sort of. In 1991, before he left the U.S., Erhard sold the "technology" behind his seminars to his employees, who formed a new company called the Landmark Education Corp.,”

Just because there is a source for something doesn’t mean it belongs and we need to be more rigorous. I am taking it off of the list for this reason. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored this sourced info. The standard on Wikipedia is WP:RS and WP:V, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Who says a "company" cannot also be a new religious movement? You? Me? Wikipedians? No. Because that would be our own unsourced things we make up, and a violation of WP:NOR. Best to stick with what we can confirm in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Self-descrfiption is not considered grounds for including or excluding material from wikipedia. Also, many movements may incorporate or otherwise declare their status as a company for whatever reason, possibly to avoid being termed "religious", perhaps in some cases because of a dislike of the word "religion". On that basis, there is no just cause that I can see to allow any group's self-description to determine whether they do or do not belong on this list. Other sources, including George Chryssides' Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements and Christopher Partridge's New Religions: A Guide, include it as well, and, on that basis, I have to say that I think the inclusion of this item is more than sufficiently merited by the sources. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with everything said here by . Cirt (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi John and Cirt. I dont follow you. The three sources I listed above are not self-descriptions. Business Week, New York Magazine and Time Magazine are reputable secondary sources that contradict the citations that are used as the basis for inclusion. That was the basis of my taking it out. Liking it or not liking it have nothing to do with it. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, your above sources do not contradict. Do they say the movement is not a "new religious movement"? No, they do not. One is not in exclusion of the other - it can be both at the same time. And per secondary sources, it is. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Elmmapleoakpine: The reason I referred to self-description is because you started the thread saying "Landmark is a self-proclaimed company", apparently placing the bulk of the emphasis on self-description. Also, if you look at List of new religious movements (alphabetical) and User:John Carter/Alphabetical list of new religious movements, which will both eventually be integrated with this list, I think I see "Inc." and similar in the names of several of them. . And, like Cirt says, being a company and being a religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as you seem to be implying. John Carter (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, my thoughts exactly. worded this better than I did. :P Cirt (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of such a thing and I have feeling the IRS would put it in one category or another. However from your response I can see that you both understand the point I was trying to make. I also see your point with regard to this article so I will drop it. :) Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Sahaja Yoga
I have removed Sahaja Yoga from the list as the reference given does not state it is a New Religious Movement, as Cirt explained it should. (See Cirt's Talk Page). Kai Tatsu (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please restore the entry, it actually does say this. Cirt (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This also seems a bit of a violation of WP:POINT. Cirt (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

After re-reading our argument, I realise I was mistaken and misunderstood what you said, and also mis-read the reference you cited. I have re-added Sahaja Yoga to the List of New religious movements. Many thanks and sorry for our misunderstanding. Kai Tatsu (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Lakewood Church
Xulon Press is a self-publisher. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not pay attention to the publisher.  I have since added a reference from a conference paper. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That paper seems to fail WP:RS. It also fails WP:V. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

List
This may seem a rather strange question. But it seems to me that the list might benefit from breakdown into sublists if all the movements or groups within that area qualify as new religious movements. Mormonism is one such grouping. Would it make sense to just have links to other lists listing all these groups individually? And, yes, I am almost through with the list of citations for the Beit-Hallahmi, Lewis, and Chryssides encyclopedias. With any luck, I will be finished later today. The first list will contain only those names common to all three books though, as there is a serious problem with several of these groups that more than one group has taken the same or similar names, so I'm going to have to go item by item to see if they are listed by another name in one of the other books. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is very beneficial to have this main list, listing all cited groups possible, in pure alphabetical format. Especially such, as merely calling a group "new religious movement", has been controversial in the past. Cirt (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oprah
Sources do not state this is a "new religious movement". Cirt (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with removing this one. Each of the sources I provided are discussing exactly that while perhaps not using the phrase. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed in many places as a "New Religion" for example http://www.christian-journey.com/oprah-winfrey-church-why-christians-have-to-beware-of-this-new-age-religion/ or this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW4LLwkgmqA&feature=player_embedded# This is really being refered to as a New Religious Movement. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are not WP:RS sources. And they do not identify it as a "new religious movement". Cirt (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything about these articles including the title of the one from Fox News talks about how Oprah is starting a new religion. If you read the article on New Relgious Movements, particularly the definitions section, that is exactly what is going on with Oprah. It is not original research to include Oprah in this case. Just because they use the term New Religion and not "New Religious Movement" it is not reason to exclude it from this list.  Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They are most certainly not the same meaning. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with Cirt above)First, a new religious movement must be identified as an NRM by reliable sources. Then, the NRM must basically have its own article, or reasonable content in another article. Oprah Winfrey herself is not a new religion, she is a living human being, and any material added regarding living people anywhere in wikipedia must meet the much stricter WP:BLP guidelines. I see no section in the existing Oprah Winfrey article about how she is starting a new religion, so I cannot see how a link to that article would be particularly productive at this point. Upon there being such a section, or a specific article about the NRM she has started, that might be different, but that is not the case at present. Regarding Prosperity theology, that is a slightly different matter. I think I have seen somewhere, maybe, that it is counted as one, but for it to be included we would need a source specifically identifying it as one. At present, I don't see one. Regarding Lakewood Church, the same rule would have to apply. There is a question whether every non-demonational church might qualify as a separate NRM, because it is, effectively, putting forward its own beliefs which are not those of any previous group. That is a question, but maybe at this point this is not the best place to discuss it. I would think the non-denominational Christianity and/or new religious movement articles would be better places for that discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Question for Cirt
Why do you keep abrubtly removing additions that people are making to this list when perhaps there is a minor thing that needs to be changed or addressed? I appreciate the need to keep an article orderly and useable for a reader by it just seems to me that removing people's contributions straight away inhibits people from contributing to this list. I include myself in a list of editors whom you have removed contributions without and real discussion and it is frustrating. Why does someones contribution have to be removed immediately when they don't provide a source right away? That is especially true when a lot of time is spent trying to find a reference to support it. In most articles, the citation tag is added at least for a little while before something is removed. Unlike other articles I have contributed to, this one feels less like a collaboration and more like some sort of pass/fail test. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about you, but when I've tried to edit the page I've seen the template that every addition must be sourced on the edit screen. Generally, that isn't seen on most pages. Part of that, I think, is that some groups and individuals think NRM=cult=sect, and really object to seeing themselves listed as a "cult" by any other name. And, remember, all you have to do is provide the source at the time of the addition, and there won't be any problems. I think by policy unsourced material can be removed at any time, particularly on lists, and, considering this is a somewhat controversial subject for a list, it makes sense for a slightly stricter standard to be kept here. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with this comment by . Cirt (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, the edit notice is at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of new religious movements. Cirt (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

New Age movement
All three of the encyclopedias I've looked at give a sepearate entry to this. Should it be included in the list? John Carter (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean the term "New Age" itself? If identified by WP:RS sources as a NRM, then yes. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "New Age movement" is I think the term used in the books most of the time, and that's currently a redirect to New Age. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
List of new religious movements and List of new religious movements (alphabetical) are the same. They should be merged. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh, didn't even know that existed. Of course they should. - IanCheesman (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * List of new religious movements (alphabetical) is something is working on. I will move that into his userspace. Cirt (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thelema
Source? Cirt (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Lewis encycloipedia lists the Order of Thelema on page 373 and an Abbey of Thelema, which I think may have been deleted, on page 25. My connections have been fairly miserable lately, but as soon as I finish the Christmas tagging I'm going to try to add substantially to the list. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Church of Ouzo
Why isn't church-of-ouzo.com listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.9.34 (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Source? Cirt (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Amway?
Really? Amway as a new religious movement? I'm familiar enough with them to wonder if this may just be a joke, but not familiar enough to remove it myself--I'd just like to call attention to it, and allow someone with a bit more certainty make that decision. -=Worloq=- (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, sourced to two different reliable sources. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Worloq, I added the entry to the article and I see your point. Amway is a comerical enterprise and while there may not be anything religious about it, it has been refered to as a New Religious Movement in the sources I provided. Perhaps the title of the article should be changed to "Lists of organizations referred to as new religious movements"? I am still not really seeing the difference between the use of the term new religion and the term new religious movement. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The title is fine as is, especially when every single entry on the page is duly cited to WP:RS/WP:V sources. A page move would encourage use of poor sources to expand the page with things "referred to" as such in pop-media, etc. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a title change is worth a discussion. The fact is that even with all of the reliable sources the only thing that can be said accurately is that these are "refered to" as new religious movements.   As Warloq pointed out it is hard to believe that Amway is a religious movement.  I put it on the list because I found sources for it, but even I have to admit, that as in the case of Landmark Education it is a company and to my knowledge neither are actually religious. I think there is a similar issue with the Philosophical Research Society in that is is a school and library or Jedism in that it was invented by George Lucas in a screenplay.  In order to be completely accurate I think items on this list should be listed as "referred to". It could prevent unneccesary issues in the future. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Amway is one of those gray-area organizations; from experience I can state that their meetings do have an almost revivalist atmosphere, but at their core they seem to be nothing more than a business. I'm not suggesting, based on personal experiences, that anything be changed, but I'm sure, given time, we could all come up with sources that meet wikipedia's requirements and label them as everything from a harmless corporation to a sadistic cult. Because of the amount of opinion that can taint valid sources, and the sensitivity of the subject, the suggested name change may be in order to better maintain a neutral POV. -=Worloq=- (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points, but we go by what the sources say. Cirt (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes a group a religion
A number of recent changes to the list have caused some serious discussion about whether certain groups are or are not a religion. I think we have to be very careful in what we both can and can not, and should and should not list as NRMs. Just because a book or a blog or a flier has been written up that calls a group a religion, doesn't make it so. Remember, that labeling a group as another religion has been used throughout history as an attack method. Many religions preach that they are the one and only right way of doing things, so if another group is another religion, they must be wrong. Now I don't know that there is any real yardstick to hold up to everything here, and I'm not suggesting any changes to the list yet. But I will make one suggestion. If a group does not self recognize as a religion, then they probably aren't. Anyways, hope this helps, and hope it doesn't cause anyone to get angry at me. - IanCheesman (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS, WP:V, scholarly secondary sources is the best way to go. Cirt (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Should the name of the article be changed?
Some contributors to the artcle are suggesting that the name of the article be changed to "List of organizations referred to as new religious movements". So as to be completely accurate and to take into account as one editor put it: "Just because a book or a blog or a flier has been written up that calls a group a religion, doesn't make it so. Remember, that labeling a group as another religion has been used throughout history as an attack method." Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This name change seems problematic. I see this article as already containing too many dubious entries, and loosening the standards via this name change, while more accurately describing what the article currently consists of, would encourage even more dubious entries. As noted earlier, a name change would allow the targets of random accusations to be included in the article (as in the discussion of Oprah). I see the likely remedy to be removing dubious listings, not changing the article name. I think some of the entries in the article go against the spirit of WP:COMMON. I suspect that a random visitor to this page wouldn't have her opinion of Wikipedia improved by seeing some of the unlikely entries listed here. Just because we can find some source somewhere that asserts something is a NRM doesn't mean it's worth including. Part of the issue is that the more absurd or obscure the claim, the less likely one is to be able to find a contradictory source. Publications don't say things like "And by the way, Oprah Winfrey is NOT starting a religious movement". I tend to agree with the editor who said that good rule of thumb is that if an organization doesn't self-identify as a religion or religious in nature, it probably shouldn't be listed here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose name change. Keep name at current title, List of new religious movements. The page already has very tight standards for inclusion, namely identification as a "new religious movement" in independent reliable secondary sources. We could tighten it further, and make it a requirement for each entry to have at least two different scholarly sources. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose name change. The criteria for selection are being called an NRM in a reliable academic source, and such is, in fact, more or less what wikipedia is supposed to do according to its goals. Í particularly oppose in the strongest possible way the suggestion that self-identification be considered a criterion for inclusion. As per our policy WP:NOTADVERTISING, we are not here to simply mimic whatever anyone says about themselves, but to follow the extant reliable, particularly academic, sources. Those are also the stated criteria for inclusion in this list. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was never suggesting that self-identification be the only requirement, but rather a second requirement on top of academic sources. Using it this was will actually reduce the number of entries on the list (see the issues of Oprah and Amway) - IanCheesman (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between the two. Oprah, frankly, doesn't belong, and never did belong, as has been said before. Amway receives specific mention as an NRM is multiple sources, so, whether it wants to be included or not is irrelevant. The differentiation is also useless on other points. Any number of NRMs say that they are somehow the only group which is advancing a "true" religion which has existed since the dawn of time but has only come to prominence in recent years. None of them self-identify as NRMs, based on the purported age of their "truth", although academics and often pretty much everybody else regard them as such. And we do not allow any sort of group's advertising to determine how we represent it anywhere else in wikipedia, so I don't see why we should here. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose name change, a list of actual religions is infinately more helpful than a list of anything that anyone calls a religion. Some people call wallstreet a religion of money, yet there is no reason it should be included in this list, for example. - IanCheesman (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether the name is changed or not, (I am proposing now advocating) there is an issue here. Even academic sources may be subjective.  Here is one example.  I just noticed that for whatever reason, Aum Shinrikyo is not on this list as the moment.  One of the bigger scholarly sources used in this article has been written by James R. Lewis. I just went to the Wikipedia article about him and noticed that he was paid by Aum Shinrikyo to defend them in the aftermath of the subway attacks. I suggest that using language such as "referred to" takes into any potential subjectivity.  Instead of the title, it could be at the top of the list. Thoughts?Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are numerous scholarly sources that refer to Aum Shinrikyo as a new religious movement. Cirt (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cirt (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is obviously incomplete, and says as much at the top of the page. Trust me, there are a lot more names to be added, and as I soon as I finish some other pending tasks they will be added. But just saying that things should be changed because the list isn't finished yet seems me as nonproductive, both because it was already listed under its current name Aleph (religion), and as it has been added now under its old name as well. Also, I haven't added the entries from Lewis' encyclopedia yet, because there are more there in that very long book than are in Beit-Hallahmi's book. Lewis himself does list Aum Shinrikyo on page 62 of his encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Odinism/asatru
how about odinism? its the religion that the vikings had, and that most of the north western countries in Europe had ( germany, sweden, holland, england, norwegen, england and finland and some others, im not sure) before they where converted. and now, primarely in scandinavia people are retaking this religion and are expelling christianity. Mylittletoni (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Source? Cirt (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The criteria for inclusion in this list are being called an NRM by a reliable academic source. If you can find one that calls Odinism an NRM, feel free to add it. I know that several books refer to "Neopaganism" as an NRM, and many might mention Odinism in their articles; I'll have to check on that. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
List should only include notable groups, that is, groups with existing wiki articles. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this to be interpreted that articles will have to be created for groups before they can be included? If so, I think it might be welcome to indicate on the talk page which are being removed, so that the articles can be created. I do however think that all of those which have been added do meet notability criteria, even if articles have yet to be created or have been previously deleted because of either then-inadquate sourcing or other issues. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. 2) Okay, good point. 3) Possibly, but I think this is a good standard to have. Cirt (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Discordianism
= not supported in cited source. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Amish
Why is a church that was founded in 1693 listed as a "new" religious movement? I can't see why the Amish church is on here? After over 300 years, doesn't it stop being "new"? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Described as such in The Encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions. Cirt (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw the source. But doesn't common sense come into play at some point? Just because a single author calls it "new", is if forever new? Compared to Judaism, yes, it's new. Compared to a lot of the religions on this list, it's not. Take it a step further. 50 years from now, that book will still exist and still call it new. Will it still be new? (yes, I know it is a 1998 book, that's not the point). At some point, we have to use our common sense. The other part of the question is, since I don't have to book in front of me, I have to rely on someone else.....Did the book actually call them a new religion? The title is cults, sects and new religions. Amish would certainly be considered a sect. That wouldn't mean that the author called them a cult or a new religion. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've always thought of the Amish as kind of old. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's kind of the point. The sect is over 300 years old. But some author may have called them now, so we throw common sense out the window and put him on this list. Most people wouldn't call an organization that is over 300 years old "new". Niteshift36 (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We should stick to WP:RS and WP:V, and avoid making up our own POV interpretations of what is or is not a "new religious movement". Best to stick to what is said on the matter by scholarly sources. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, my question is whether or not the author actually called them new or not? Have you read the source? Has anyone here? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that entry may have been added by . Cirt (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the book section; it does not refer to the Amish as a new religious movement. Even the sects within the Amish community generally date back to the 19th century. I'd be happy to drop the Amish from the list. Perhaps we have to remember that Lewis's book covers "sects" as well as "new religious movements". While the Amish could be described as a Christian sect, they are no longer new. -- JN  466  11:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I vote for common sense. Keeping the Amish on the list doesn't make sense. I have added to this list in the past based on WP:RS but in retrospect I think it was against my better judgement. An example of this is Amway.  I put it on the list because I found a reliable source that called it a new religious movement, despite the fact that it is a business.  I no longer support the inclusion of that in this article. I suggested a title change to "List of Groups referred to as New Religious Movements" (which is the only thing that is actually verifiable) but Cirt and another editor were against it. For that reason, I have not contributed to the list for a while. I think common sense needs to be taken into account here. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Elmmapleoakpine, your statement is in effect an argument for personal opinion about what is or is not termed a "new religious movement", to take more weight than WP:RS sources. That is highly inappropriate and is a slippery slope. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to request the book on inter-library loan and see. I suspect that could be a case of misconstruing the title as meaning everything listed is a "new" religion. Like saying a book called "Encyclopedia of Lions, Tigers and Bears" means that everything listed in the book is a Bear, even if that means the tigers. Then, because it is a RS, we say "well, it's a scholarly reference", defending it without ever having seen it ourselves and really not knowing if it is being presented accurately or not. We can WP:V that the book exists, but who has verified what is says?Niteshift36 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the verification was done by . Cirt (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's really not that difficult. Lewis has a full searchable preview in amazon. I read the entire entry, and it does not call the Amish a new religious movement. It points out that they were founded in the 17th century. Even the major splinter groups date back to the mid-19th century. -- JN 466  01:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, well it should definitely be removed if it is not verifiable to a WP:RS source that it is a "new religious movement". Cirt (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I've suspected. The book covers cults, sects and new religions. Clearly, the Amish would qualify as a sect, but that doesn't mean they are new. If there is an error, it could be completely unintentional. But I'm not comfortable with defending something nobody can claim they've laid eyes on. I'll check amazon. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:JN466 Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -- JN 466  03:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientology
Why is it listed twice, once as Scientology and once as the Church of Scientology? Aren't they the same thing? And why is the Church of Jesus Christ of the Later Day Saints called Mormonism rather than their formal name? Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And the Christian and Missionary Alliance sounds like a mainstream Protestant organization from its article. Who says it's a new religious movement, besides being kind of new (1887)? Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dup entry removed. As for the 2nd part of your question, the standards for inclusion are identification as a "new religious movement" in WP:RS scholarly sources. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Similar problem to Lewis above. Beit-Hallahmi's book covers "active sects" as well as NRMs, and the entry does not explicitly call the Christian and Missionary Alliance a NRM. ("US Evangelical Holiness group founded in 1887 ...") -- JN  466  12:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ = Removed Christian and Missionary Alliance, as not identified in the cited source as a "new religious movement". Cheers, Cirt (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- JN 466  03:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Deep rv
the move to an alphabetical list defeated any purpose this page might have. For simple alphabetical lists, we use categories (Category:New religious movements. All articles so categorized are listed alphabetically there, automatically. This page needs to present a list which gives information beyond a mere alphabetical list of article titles, or it is not a valid list article but a simple list of Wikipedia articles. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * = this edit by violated WP:BURDEN; it removed sourced info and added wholly unsourced info to the page. Please do not do this again. Cirt (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * nonsense. Reply to the point raised, and don't destroy elaborate article structures as you did with this list article. You want an alphabetical list of articles, put it under Portal:Contents. --dab (𒁳) 15:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * = violation of site policies and WP:BURDEN a second time, adding unsourced info to the page after this was already pointed out specifically to . Cirt (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two separate issues here. Cirt and John Carter have done a lot of commendable work improving sourcing and identifying scholarly references, which Dbachmann’s revert has undone. On the other hand, Dbachmann has pointed out that the reorganisation of the list to a simple alphabetical listing has destroyed a meaningful list structure and broken links which redirected to the old list’s subheadings.
 * Certainly, all the improved sources Cirt and John Carter have identified should be kept. If there is agreement to go back to the old list structure, their sourcing improvements and related inclusion/exclusion decisions should be incorporated in the old version reverted to, so their effort is not lost.
 * If, on the other hand, the new alphabetical structure is retained then there is work to be done on the dead-end redirects which the change created.
 * The first question to decide is whether the abolition of the old article structure was an improvement or not. I suggest editors put their arguments for and against. -- JN 466  16:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if we've started this discussion on the wrong foot. My main concern is that your revert to a much earlier version undid a large amount of referencing work and introduced a lot of unreferenced material. My main objection is the wholesale destruction of citation information. I am going to revert back to the sourced version to preserve the citations to reliable sources. Please suggest organizational changes to the article, instead of reverting to a poorly cited old version. There are no objections to working to improve the article. Cirt (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, we would still need sources to show that any entry belonged not just on this page at all, but also within whatever claimed subsections it would be moved into. Cirt (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I posted to WP:CNB to get some outside input from previously uninvolved editors. Cirt (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Cirt's revert makes sense for now. It will be easier to introduce subheadings in the correctly referenced version, if that's what editors decide to do, than to transfer the correct references one by one to the old version. And Cirt is correct that we need sources to assign movements to any subsections.
 * The broken redirect Dbachmann mentioned,, could just as well redirect to Christian new religious movement. Are there other broken redirects?
 * I am glad to see that this discussion is moving away from the unfortunate confrontational style it had at the beginning. -- JN 466  16:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The subsections are notable and noteworthy enough that they could be their own, independent lists. It will be much easier to maintain sourcing here, in its present alphabetical format. It is quite controversial enough whether any group is or is not a "new religious movement", let alone introducing other subsections and variables to squabble over. Cirt (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you thought of using a sortable table format, with a separate column indicating what type of movement each movement is? -- JN 466  16:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A great idea, and I love it, but this particular list would probably be way too big for that. Cirt (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is the best way to go, a sortable list table structure (would need a separate cite for each entry when asserting what type of movement it is). If the list gets too big for that, we can deal with it later. If there is consensus to do this, then I will restructure it as such. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be great. As you say, each label should have a cite. Editors can add these gradually over time. Where different researchers have applied different labels to one movement, we'd have to put more than one label in the "type" column, each with a ref to the researcher(s) who used it. As only the first label would count in alphabetical reorganisation of the table, I guess the first should be the most prevalent label. -- JN 466  17:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Per WP:BURDEN, that column would initially start out blank, and be added to over time, if sourced properly. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Should we add a column for the founder of each movement? -- JN 466  17:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will do that once there is consensus for the change. Cirt (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A sortable table is fine with me - IanCheesman (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will get on doing that soon. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

✅. Remember, new additions of material must be appropriately cited to WP:RS sources. (For entries of the new fields Founder, Year founded, Type). Cirt (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks! Beit-Hallahmi's 1998 revised edition has a categorical index of movements, grouping them according to type; that is one source we can cite to assign the movements to categories here. -- JN 466  05:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, Cirt (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you post here what all of these categories will be? Some concensis will have to be made about which category(s) to list individual NRMs, and having a running list would help, especially when we get to religions not from Beit. - IanCheesman (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this will require more discussion, and I've started a section below. -- JN 466  13:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another column we might like to add at some point (not that we don't have enough work already) is how many members each movement has. -- JN 466  13:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of categories
We'll have some headaches to work through, for sure. So far, I've used the labels Beit-Hallahmi has applied in the group's entry itself. For example, he describes Aetherius as "UFO-Christian". In the categorical index, it is simply listed under "'UFO' Groups".
 * "UFO-Christian" is more informative, but it will not sort as neatly as "UFO group". What is more important?
 * From a categorisation point of view, it would be nice to have, say, 20 categories agreed beforehand, and use those and no others. However, if we do that, we impose our OR template on the authors. -- JN 466  13:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For now I would suggest we simply use, verbatim, the most informative and specific labels our sources use. Once we have the table populated, we can see if it is possible to consolidate the categories in some way which does not introduce OR. -- JN 466  13:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Another more general problem is that the Aaronic Order, for example, is not explicitly described as a "new religious movement" in its entry in Beit-Hallahmi (see the Amish problem, below). Given that it was founded in the 1930s, we'd probably agree that it is "new", but we're quickly into OR territory here, given that there is no universally agreed cut-off date that makes a movement "new". How to get around the problem? If we are including movements just on the strength of their having an entry in an NRM reference work, then we could restrict ourselves to listings in books like the "Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements" or "The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements", i.e. books that don't have "sects" or "cults" in the title. Even so, we'd still be labouring under the difficulty that not everything listed in Clarke's encyclopedia, for example, is "meant" to be an NRM. Clarke also has entries on –
 * umbrella terms like "Fundamentalism" or "Buddhism in the West",
 * founders of movements,
 * cult-watching groups,
 * etc. -- JN 466  13:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An alternative solution would be simply to rename the list "List of sects, cults and new religious movements". Then the Amish would be back in, and the presence of an entry in Beit-Hallahmi etc. would be enough. -- JN 466  13:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The ideal source reference really is not the discussion of a group in a book with "NRM" in the title, but a sentence that runs "Group X is a new religious movement of type A founded by B in year C" found in a scholarly reference work. Ironically, generic reference works on religion might be more likely to have such a sentence than encyclopedias specialising in NRMs. What do you guys think? -- JN 466  13:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, to answer your question, Beit-Hallahmi uses the following categories in his categorical index: -- JN 466  13:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Adventist groups
 * African-American groups
 * "Black Jews"
 * British-Israelism
 * Buddhism
 * Cargo cults
 * Communal groups, 19th century
 * Communal groups, 20th century
 * Fundamentalist
 * Gurdjieff groups
 * Hebrew-Christian groups
 * Hindu, Hindu-oriented, and Hindu-inspired international and western groups
 * Hindu reform and revival groups
 * Identity movement (Christian identity)
 * Islam
 * Jehovah's Witnesses (and related groups)
 * Jesus Movement
 * Judaism (and related groups)
 * Messianic Judaism
 * Millenarian
 * Mormons
 * Native American
 * Neo-Pagan groups
 * New Thought groups ["New Age" redirects to this]
 * Occultists
 * Old Catholic groups
 * Pentecostal [easily the most populous entry]
 * Protestant
 * Rastafarian
 * Rosicrucians
 * Sabbath-keeping groups
 * Scientology [listing half a dozen Scientology spin-offs as well as the Church of Scientology]
 * Sikhism
 * "Snake Handlers"
 * Spiritualists
 * Sufism
 * Theosophy groups
 * Tibetan Buddhism
 * Traditionalist Roman Catholics
 * "UFO" groups
 * An interesting list, and one with an obvious problem, in my opinion. There is 1 category for everything related to Islam, 1 for everything related to Judaism, 2 for Buddhism, but somewhere between 8 and 15 for Christian groups.  This presents an obvious bias (a common problem when one uses only one source).
 * An older version of this page (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_new_religious_movements&oldid=333971213) has the religions sorted by type, and while it may be able to find specific references, those categories seemed to be a lot more intuitive than the ones listed above for a sortable column. Or maybe we can find some compromise? - IanCheesman (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The sensible approach here is to emulate categorization used in WP:RS sources - not in prior versions of Wikipedia pages made-up arbitrarily by individual Wikipedia contributors. Cirt (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Common sense, not personal opinion
Cirt- in the section of this talk page on the Amish, you said that I was in effect arguing for personal opinion. I disagree. I am arguing for a normal kind of common sense that in some instances may call into question the reliability of certain "scholarly" sources. There are undoubtedly reliability issues with many "scholarly" sources. A an example, the concept of eugenics can be supported by scholarly sources. If we go by the edict that scholarly sources trump all others then there is no reason we cannot create an article called "List of Inferior Races" and use one of those afore mentioned "scholarly" sources to justify it. I should hope that there is a common sense that would prevent editors from going down a path like that. As I said before, I am not inclined to edit on this article anymore but I think I a pointing to a significant problem/flaw in this article.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything specific to address with regards to the present state of this article? Cirt (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When I really look at it. It is not the "state" of the article, so much as the premise. I have totally changed my mind since I started working on this article. I think that the premise of this list is subjective.  I think it presumes an infallibility of the "scholarly" sources and ignores the fact that in every field of study there are scholars who have opposing views on virtually everything. From global warming to child psychology it is possible to find another scholar to contradict or oppose any theory.  This article in its current state makes no room for that. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be more of a complaint of the existence of the page at all, rather than a suggestion on how to improve it. Cirt (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The premise of the article looks wrong to me. The concept of "new" depends on the age of the source; as such, a RS cannot define positively something as "new" once and for all: it can define it as "new" only relatively to the date when the source itself was created. The "common sense" position is also defective: first, "new" is a fuzzy concept and there is no absolute, NPOV-ish way to define what is "new" and what is "old"; second, it is a moving target. We can do better than that: we have for example Religious movements founded since 1950, which at least gives an absolute (even if arbitrary) time starting point. This provides an objective criteria for inclusion and an immobile target. We could have lists separated by, say, 50-year intervals, if we want to cover years before 1950 (and after 2000 too, I'd say). -- Cycl o pia talk  01:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "New religious movement" is a scholarly defined term, most frequently used by academic sociologists in the field of sociology of religion. The "new" part of it is not to be taken or interpreted separately from the entire term itself. Cirt (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But his point is valid. If I write a book today and call something a new movement, it may fit that "scholarly defined term". But 50 years from now, if someone tries to use my book as a reference to call something new, what was said then is outdated. It's like saying that the "new" body design of the 1982 is always the "new" body. It stopped being the "new" body at some point (1993). Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a good point. However at that later point in time, we would need a newer scholarly source disputing the previously published scholarly source. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that the source didn't call them new and what started as a "this doesn't make sense" discussion turned out to correct the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was due to checking of the sources. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not being clear. It started when I used some common sense and said "that doesn't sound right". I brought it to this page and you immediately dismissed my inquiry by telling me it was described as such in the source. Obviously, you were taking that on faith because it turns out that it wasn't described that way. The point here isn't to lay blame, but to point out that our common sense does play a role here. It led to the source actually being checked out more thoroughly rather than accepted without question. In other words, until someone used some common sense, nobody bothered to check because the source sounded good. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, quite right. I fully agree with this comment. :) Cirt (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Looking at the article New religious movements, I find it says, and gives sources, for it that "Generally, Christian denominations that are an accepted part of mainstream Christianity are not seen as new religious movements; nevertheless, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, Christian Scientists, and Shakers have been studied as NRMs." But looking at this list, I find it does not include The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Post-Vatican Roman Catholicism, but it does include the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and the Shakers. As the omitted groups are too prominent to have been simply ignored, either they ought to be included or the criteria here redefined.
 * There is a somewhat similar list at Religious movements founded since 1950, with partially duplicating information--I'd suggest a merge, including everything in either category, and perhaps going back to 1900.   DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. This page pertains to the term "new religious movement" which is a specific term used by sociologists in the study of sociology of religion. Cirt (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I would oppose a rote-merge into this page from that page - as absolutely nothing from that page was sourced to any WP:RS sources whatsoever. I would, however, support a redirect or even deletion of that other page. Cirt (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge for the reasons Cirt gave. Religious movements founded since 1950 should just be Afd'd (1950 seems an arbitrary cutoff date). BTW, while the LDS denomination mentioned is not in the article, Mormonism itself is already listed. If there are aspects of Roman Catholicism which should be mentioned as a distinct NRM, then those certainly should be added to the article with source(s). &bull; Astynax talk 18:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Opus Dei
I removed Opus Dei from this list as there is nothing among its practices or adherents that distinguishes it from Catholicism in general. It is no more a "new religious movement" than are the Knights of Columbus, Communion & Liberation, Neocatechumenal Way, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal or the Focolare Movement which were all created in the 20th century and which are also all very much Catholic. As no one considers them as cults, let alone distinct entities separate from the Catholic Church. Therefore, Opus Dei shouldn't either. --Kismetmagic (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Kismetmagic
 * Source please? The entry is backed up with citations to two WP:RS sources. Can you present sources to back up your claims? Cirt (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's impossible to prove a negative. The onus is upon you to prove that Opus Dei belongs on this list. Opus Dei is simply a lay community within the Catholic Church just like the list of groups I mentioned in my previous posting. The Jesuits were suppressed for 75 years but no one in their right mind would suggest that Jesuits weren't Catholic. Opus Dei is the Church's first personal prelature which has been legal in the Church since Vatican II and thus endorsed by the Catholic Church. It operates ONLY by permission of the Catholic Church. It is NOT an independent, rival organization run in opposition to the Church. In fact, it was started by Josemaría Escrivá who was subsequently canonized a saint in the Church. How would the Church canonize a heretic that started a rival organization? This is their site: http://www.opusdei.org/ If you see anything that looks remotely anti-Church, then I will agree with you. Otherwise, there is no evidence whatsoever of Opus Dei being a "new religious movement"

As to proof of my argument, I refer you to a specific statement from the Church addressing the creation of Opus Dei: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CBISUTSI.HTM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kismetmagic (talk • contribs)
 * Something from independent reliable secondary sources please? Cirt (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why isn't that television network a reliable source? It carries Catholic themed programming, but it's not owned by the Church. It is an independent charitable organization. They're reporting what the Church said. Dismissing it would be like saying we can't use McNeil-Lehrer as a source about Congress. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would be best to have sources about what religious scholars have said, not about what the organization itself has said. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An org can be a source about it's own activities, especially if it's not self-promotion or contentious. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This article appeared in an influential, internationally-recognized Catholic Jesuit magazine. It explains the history and complete orthodoxy of Opus Dei: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/articles/martin-opusdei.cfm

In addition, the following article describes Catholic Archbishop Oscar Romero's preference for Opus Dei priests as his spiritual directors. It would be impossible for a Catholic archbishop, especially one who is himself on the path to sainthood, to take spiritual direction from someone who is a heretic and who set himself up in opposition to the Church: http://www.spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/904242brock.html

And now...for the pièce de résistance. The completely undeniable, irrefutable proof that Opus Dei is a member organization fully in communion with Roman Catholic Church: an address given by Pope John Paul II to members of Opus Dei who were on pilgrimage to the Vatican and who were received in private audience by His Holiness: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2002/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20020112_opus-dei_en.html

How much more proof do you need? The Vatican says they are Catholic. The Pope says they are Catholic. The Jesuits Order admits they are Catholic. An international Catholic television station says they are Catholics. A soon-to-be Catholic saint says they are Catholic. A Catholic saint Josemaría Escrivá created the organization. Opus Dei is Catholic. Basta cosi. --Kismetmagic (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An international television network that is NOT under the church. They are totally independent and that's important to note. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is by nature a "contentious" and controversial subject matter. For something like this topic, it is best to have citations to independent reliable secondary sources, as opposed to sources directly affiliated with the organizations, groups and movements. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that if one claims that Opus Dei is actually a "new religious movement" and not a part of the Catholic Church, that person is obliged to also explain why the Vatican and Pope Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI and several Catholic saints are somehow confused or incorrect in their assessments that Opus Dei is ACTUALLY Catholic. Is it even theoretically conceivable that the Church is incorrect in this regard? Surely they must know who is and who isn't Catholic. Is anyone worried that water isn't wet? That the South Pole isn't actually located in Antarctica? That America doesn't actually have 50 states? That Paris isn't really the capital of France? These points are all truisms. We accept them with metaphysical certitude. This discussion is hung up on the point as to whether we can trust the Vatican's website as to the question of Opus Dei's Catholicity. Surely they must know. Who else are we to trust as to the simple question, "Is Opus Dei Catholic?" --Kismetmagic (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOT. Let us please keep this discussion focused on independent reliable secondary sources, as opposed to debating our own personal opinions about the subject matter itself. Cirt (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not discussing my "personal opinion" as to whether or not Opus Dei is Catholic. My concern is that a primary source, the Vatican's website, is being ignored in this regard. It is a primary, irrefutable source of information that will answer the question at hand. Should we ask the Presbyterians as to who is Catholic or not? We wouldn't ask the Catholic Church as to who was Presbyterian. --Kismetmagic (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we should not ask another group that would be presumed to have a vested opinion with regard to the first. We should instead consult independent reliable secondary sources, particularly religious scholars and other academic scholarship. Cirt (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You've missed my point. Let me rephrase my remark: Should we ask a physicist as to who is who is Catholic? Maybe a professional baseball player? If the Catholic Church insists that Opus Dei is Catholic, why would anyone need more sources to verify their statement?--Kismetmagic (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK...here we go. Should we ask the BBC as to whether or not Opus Dei is Catholic? Mercifully, someone already has: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/opusdei.shtml

Tada!!! Opus Dei is Catholic. Q.E.D.. Te Deum laudamus! --Kismetmagic (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I added multiple additional citations for the entry Opus Dei on this list. This entry is now cited to five different independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Opus Dei is an officially recognized part of the Catholic Church. This point should be accepted as a fact.

For third-party journalistic sources, a good reference is John Allen's book "Opus Dei", published by Doubleday in 2005. John Allen is a very highly respected journalist with a reputation for accuracy and fairness.

Furthermore, since we are talking about what is the official position of the Catholic Church, the official Church statements from the Pope and the Vatican should be considered authoritative. The Pope is indeed an expert on Catholicism, and his official actions and decrees do carry weight.

Opus Dei is listed as a part of the Catholic Church in the "Annuario Pontificio", which is the official authoritative directory published by the Vatican. (See pg. 1070 in the 2009 edition.)

Opus Dei was established by Pope John Paul II as a "personal prelature", its current canonical configuration under the law of the Catholic Church, in 1982. The head of Opus Dei (currently Bishop Javier Echevarria) is appointed by the Pope himself. (See .)

The founder of Opus Dei was officially made a saint of the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II. See the Vatican Website:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the prominent theologian-scholar who later became Pope Benedict XVI, praised Opus Dei for its faithful adherence to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church: "From all this I have better understood the inner character of Opus Dei, this surprising union of absolute fidelity to the Church’s great tradition, to its faith, and unconditional openness to all the challenges of this world. See, also cited in the book "Opus Dei" by John Allen.

I think it would be helpful to take another look at the definition of "New Religious Movement" in the main article. For an entity to qualify, it has to be "distinct from pre-existing denominations." Opus Dei accepts the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and it is an official recognized part of the Catholic Church, so it does not meet the definition for a "New Religious Movement". Lionmarble (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For an entity to qualify for inclusion on this page, it has to have citations to independent reliable secondary sources that verify the group as a "new religious movement". This particular entry for the group "Opus Dei", has five citations to such independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I hate to bring up the past.....but has anyone here actually READ the five citations? Remember the "new" Amish? It had a "scholarly reference". But the reference did NOT call them a new religious movement. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the ones that I have recently added to the page, so those are definitely confirmed as identifying the group for inclusion on this page. But you do have a good point. :) Cirt (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Filling in the chart
So, I have access to none of the books that list most of these entries we have, and thus can't do much, but could someone who does start filling in the chart? We have 14 of the entries with founders, 15 with dates, and 13 with catagories. It makes this look uncompleted (which it is) and uncared for (which it is not). I don't know what the format of Beit-Hallahmi or Chryssides (our two big sources) are, but surely some of this info is in there. - IanCheesman (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been on my list since I encountered the article. My problem is finding an unbroken block of time, since I only have the bulky book formats for Beit-Hallahmi and Melton. Typing in citations is a slow chore for me, and all those blanks are intimidating. Still, the list of NRMs itself is sourced, and those sources at least point readers to further information, even where some fields do not yet contain data. &bull; Astynax talk 05:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Admin did a lot of the research on this page. Unfortunately, he has not been around for quite a while. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope he is OK. I'm amazed by the amount of work John Carter has contributed, and if he is taking a break, then it is well deserved. Off to crack a book and fill in some blanks. &bull; Astynax talk 07:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting to look much better, thanks for taking the time to do this Astynax. One question though, if Melton is what you are using for columns 2,3,and 4, should those references be added to column 1 as well.  I looks a little odd that Melton can't be used to verify that the religion in question is a NRM, but can verify the founder, year, and style of religion.  Anyways, just some thoughts, thanks again. - IanCheesman (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct that Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions doesn't usually distinguish between NRM and traditional religious organizations. However, he does organize his entries by "type", which makes locating the info for that column easier to find. It is certainly fine should someone wish to insert new info, or replace existing info sourced to Melton, using Beit-Hallahmi, Chryssides, etc. &bull; Astynax talk 17:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Another thing which is needed is to put up wikilinks to the articles for those founders who have Wikipedia biographies. Locating which of those have articles really slows down adding info for the blank fields. So, if someone wants to volunteer, but doesn't have access to references, this is some editing which can be done to move the article forward. If still needed, I'll try and fill in more blanks next week. &bull; Astynax talk 21:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * started going through these, but it is amazing how many wiki pages list different people (of course, I saw 3 separate ones just in the "A"s that listed "Jesus Christ", so maybe not all that hard to believe... - IanCheesman (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through and inserted info for founder, start date and type from Melton. Some fields are still blank either because the group or info are not listed under the corresponding title in my edition of Melton or because there are several organizations using the same or similar name(s) and it will be necessary to consult the original reference cited to determine which organization should be detailed. &bull; Astynax talk 10:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting Back to the Original Point
It seems that some are arguing that Opus Dei is a new religious movement though all they offer is the word of five scholars that may or may not know what they are talking about. There are others who point to more than two dozen sources that claim differently. The principle epistomological question is, which set of "proofs" does one trust. For the citations listed that claim Opus Dei is NOT Catholic, one would have to explain why it is that the Church for the past 60 years is confused about Opus Dei's identity. It doesn't matter what the scholars have to say if the Catholic Church claims differently. Let's put it this way, if the situation was reversed and the Church said, "Nope...sorry...Opus Dei is an organization distinct and different from us and operates without our approval," while a few sociological scholars disagreed and insisted, "I'm sure these people are Catholic," we wouldn't be here wasting out time. Please show me one source that proves the Church is incorrect in its assessment. If such a source is not forthcoming, then the entry has to be changed. It's possible that the five scholars are incorrect but it's impossible that the Church is incorrect in this regard.--Kismetmagic (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us keep the discussion to independent reliable secondary sources, and not primary sources or what the group itself says about itself. Cirt (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Added yet another source, for the entry "Opus Dei". (Buxant 2008) Now, there are a total of six different independent reliable secondary sources, for the entry "Opus Dei" on this list. Cirt (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll abandon this point instantly if you admit that the scholars who claim Opus Dei is a "new religious movement" must necessarily be correct. You can point out a 1000 scholars who agree with them but all you have to do is admit that they must be right and the Church must be wrong. I think that's fair. You're admitting it passively. You might as well admit it explicitly.--173.77.126.117 (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I should also point out that the Opus Dei wiki page also SPECIFICALLY says that it is an organization in union with the Roman Church. How can Wikipedia insist upon both? If you are correct, I suggest you follow this link change the Opus Dei page. You can't have it both ways.--173.77.126.117 (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS for other Wikipedia articles. That is circular logic. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can't it be both? A new religious movement within the Catholic Church. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what it is. -- JN 466  04:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not "circular logic" to refer to another Wiki article. It is an incestuous research admittedly but not circular in reasoning. My point is that if Wikipedia can't support two opposing views citing proof of both.--Kismetmagic (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So...what you're saying is that the Catholic Church doesn't realize that it has spawned a new religious group distinct from itself on the order of Protestantism and Orthodoxy while the five scholars you've listed have been able to pierce this veil? That sounds odd especially considering the monolithic structure of the Church and the fact that Opus Dei itself doesn't realize that it is "new" and "distinct." (Please refer to their Wiki page.) Where is the data? Where is the proof? The only thing that has been pointed out is the opinions of these five scholars which, by the way, I can't access. Please show me these five original sources and we can come to a better understanding of this situation.--Kismetmagic (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree wtih above users. It can be both within a larger organization, and refererred to as a "new religious movement" by multiple scholarly independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Both the Krishna movement and the Self Realization Fellowship are new religious movements within Hinduism. I don't see why Opus Dei can't be one within Catholicism. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nod, agree with this comment by . Cirt (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As are the hundreds of Cristian organizations part of Christianity (and often part of Protistantism, Orthodoxy, or Catholicism.) Can we move on now? - IanCheesman (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Very easily explained: The Catholic Church is a monolithic structure. One head. One organization. One set of rules that everyone has to follow. Hinduism is not thusly structured. Anyone can say they are Hindu if they so chose but there is no central bureaucracy to which one must, as in the case of sacrament of Baptism, register that choice. The point you brought up is an interesting one and actually works in my favor. While it can be said that the Self Realization Fellowship has similarities to Hinduism or even has Hinduism as its basis, there are still basic differences. There are no differences between Opus Dei and Catholicism. The Self Realization Fellowship doesn't have it's leadership ordained and appointed by some central Hindu organization. There are no more differences between Opus Dei and Catholicism than there are between Franciscanism and Catholicism. The former is a group of men and women who are in perfect union with and operate for the Catholic Church. By the above logic, the Franciscans are now heretics and heterodox. But I've to meet anyone stupid enough to suggest that as they've been with the Church for 800 years. The truth is there are many liturgical and spiritual groups that form and operate WITHIN Catholicism including the Knights of Columbus, Communion & Liberation, Neocatechumenal Way, Community of Sant'Egidio, Catholic Charismatic Renewal, Cursillo, L'Arche, Women for Faith and Family, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal and the Focolare Movement which were all created in the 20th century and which are also all very much Catholic. Please tell me what the difference is between Opus Dei and Catholicism. If you can't, then Opus Dei doesn't qualify as a "new religious movement." Here is a short list of associations in union with the Church: http://www.kenrickparish.com/gresham/catholic.htm#Movements. You'll note that the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association and the Old Catholics are not on this list...because they are NOT in union with the Church. They have separated themselves. Here is a list of associations in union with the Church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Catholics_not_in_communion_with_Rome. If a group is in union with Rome, then it can't be a "new religious movement."--Kismetmagic (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this appears to be an argument based on personal opinion and POV, as opposed to a discussion of the scholarly independent reliable secondary sources that identify the organization as a "new religious movement". Cirt (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are incorrect. This a simple argument requesting those involved not miss the forest for the trees. Using the basic principles of logic and epistemology, you would have to admit that Opus Dei is not a NEW religious movement distinct from the Catholic Church. Why aren't you treating my argument on logical grounds? You're basing your argument on the idea that if someone says x, it must be correct and if 5 people say x, it must be even MORE correct. This is silly and illogical. Do you understand that it is very difficult to prove a negative? It would be nearly impossible to find sources that said that Opus Dei is Catholic especially considering that you refuse to consider the Catholic Church's testimony on this issue. Further, you're becoming irrational and emotional when you accuse me of expressing a personal opinion. I'm not. This is plain, simple logic. I would be arguing exactly the same if someone insisted that Paris wasn't the capital of France even if one can find a dozen people who shared that delusion.--Kismetmagic (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please, let us stick to a discussion of scholarly independent reliable secondary sources, and not engage in WP:NOT. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

An attempt to be bold
I have copied (with some slight edits) the lead from New religious movement into our lead here, and included a larger link back to that page. The two pages are working on the same topic, so it make sense to be working from the same vantage point. Hope no one objects too loudly :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IanCheesman (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks. Moved it into a subsection for Background (on the subject of the list). Cirt (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that section a little too Christianity-centric? It only mentions Christianity when many of the groups are related to other religions. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think that is the best source of info anyways, and will likely work to expand that section with a range of other sources. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

TM founder
First, Brahmananda Saraswati died in 1953, so it's not clear how he could have founded a movement five years later. But more importantly, I've read dozens of sources which describe the the Maharishi as the founder, but I don't recall any that say his own teacher, Brahmananda Saraswati, was also the founder. Even if there is one which does so, it might be a fringe view if it contradicts many other mainstream sources. While Guru Dev may have revived or created the practice of TM (that's not clear), it was Maharishi who founded the movement, which is what we're addressing here.  Will Beback   talk    06:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Transcendental Meditation, founded by: Brahmananda Saraswati (Guru Dev) and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi [Melton 2003], p. 1045. date founded: 1958
 * I suppose it is the same situation as in any movement where one or more disciples were entirely responsible for propagating something delivered to them earlier. I included Maharishi Mahesh Yogi because he was clearly involved. I likewise included Guru Dev because the source explicitly states that he founded the movement (and IIRC, that was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's position). Here is the quote from Melton: "The founder of TM (or rather the modern rediscoverer) was Guru Dev, but its real exponent has been Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who spent 13 years in seclusion with Guru Dev, and upon Guru Dev's death, came forth in 1958 to tell the world about TM." A quick search turns up other reliable references which back Melton's statement, among others:
 * Doniger, Wendy; Merriam-Webster, eds. 1999. Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc. p. 684. ISBN 0877790442
 * Kyle, Richard G. 1993. The Religious Fringe: a History of Alternative Religions in America. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, p. 204. ISBN 0830817662
 * Hoiberg, Dale; Indu Ramchandani editors. 2000. Students' Britannica India, v.3. New Delhi, India: Encyclopædia Britannica (India) Private, Limited, p. 344. ISBN 9780852297605
 * All explicitly call Guru Dev "the founder" of TM, and note Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's role in propagating TM. &bull; Astynax talk 18:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that great research. I think this relates back to the issue that has come up repeatedly with TM - the distinction between the technique and the movement. The first of source you list above, Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, says:
 * ...he studied under Guru Dev, the founder of TM. When Guru Dev died in 1952, the Maharishi organized a movement to spread his teachings throughout the world.
 * Guru Dev may have founded the technique, but here we're discussing movements. I don't want to make a big deal about this. I just think it's a little misleading to say that Guru Dev was a founder of the Transcendental Meditation movement.   Will Beback    talk    21:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tag requesting a quote. We just report what the references say. The sources mention them both as "founders" and to go beyond that to report what we feel may be "misleading" or to synthesize a different view of who was the founder based upon what we read into statements in the references is WP:OR. It also presumes that we know more about what went into the research behind the reference(s) than is possible. It could be the reasoning of these researchers was that early-on, it was a movement of only 2, or it could be that Guru Dev's other disciples provided a pre-existing framework, or perhaps they thought what Maharishi Mahesh Yogi "organized" was more along the lines of an organization for propagation rather than a distinctive movement, or ??? Regardless, second-guessing sources is a vexed undertaking.  &bull; Astynax talk 22:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)