Talk:New religious movement/Archive 2

Mormons "an accepted part of mainstream Christianity"
No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.193.46 (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But if it had said "an accepted part of mainstream American society" that would be correct. Borock (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Intention
I just put in an order on Amazon for some more recent (and I hope objective) books on NRM's. After they arrive I will be adding some material to the article. Borock (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We hope for the best in that. Also, for what it might be worth, I think the articles in the various reference works relating to this subject, including the group of articles on new religious movements in the recent second edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones might be useful in developing content relating to this subject. I have seen that reference book in particular to be included in just about every reference section I have ever seen, of public and university libraries, and I think its articles might be able to help decide our own content. If for whatever you don't have access to it, drop me an e-mail and I can forward you the texts of any articles you might want. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I might check the library for that one. Borock (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

History section
I'm starting this. My main source so far is Elijah Siegler, 2007, New Religious Movements, Prentice Hall, ISBN 0131834789. He is a religious studies professor at the College of Charleston and teaches a course on NRM's. I'm kind of going by what he seems to think are important points in NRM history.Borock (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW I don't know how to put page numbers into a reference when you use "page name." Borock (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Globalization
I found a good edit to add but couldn't find the right category to put it under. I have created the new section "NRMs and Globalization."Matipop (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Cult category
Are NRM's all classified as cults? According to whom? Should this article be classified under cults? Why isn't New religious movements not sufficient?

Zambelo (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all NRMs are categorized as cults. However most scholars place cults and sects under the NRM classification, which was created to replace "cult" and "sect" and the perceived negative overtones of those terms. On the other hand, at least some scholars have never adopted the NRM designation, and still work with typologies which use the cult, sect, denomination, national religion terms to describe the degree of organization and socialization. &bull; Astynax talk 08:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported broad definition
Having now taken the time to study in more detail Massimo Introvigne's 2001 paper [], which is the source (or at least a source) for the contention that NRM is a 'polite synonym' for the derogatory terms 'cult' or 'sect', it is completely clear that he was talking about the use of those terms specifically in connection with explicitly religious groups in the normally-understood sense of that word; not secular groups - for example such as personal development systems or multi-level marketing outfits - that had been described by someone or other as a "cult", possibly in a rhetorical sense. There is no indication there that the term NRM is defined to include "philosophical groups", and nor could I find such a definition anywhere else in my exploration of the writings on the subject. I am therefore removing this phrase from the lead, although of course it could be re-instated if anyone finds a satisfactory citation. DaveApter (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. I also took out "ethical," leaving "religous" and "spiritual." If a group is ethical and not also religious and/or spiritual I don't think that would be within the reasonable range a "NRM." There are groups that are considered cults (by some), including the followers of Ayn Rand and Lyndon LaRarouche, who are non-religious or even anti-religious.  But they belong in Cult not in this article. Borock (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The very core of the idea of NRM as an academic subject is that people replace traditional religion with alternatives that fulfill the role of religion (personal revelation, an ethical basis, methods of resolving life problems, a structure for living, etc.). The term, from its earliest usage by Turner, was not restricted to mainstream conceptions of "religion" (a term which itself is broadly construed in academic literature), but broadly inclusive of a wide variety of non-traditional ways of addressing religious purposes. In sociology and psychiatry, NRM, by definition, also encompasses cults and sects which occupy religious roles, whether or not they are overtly religions. Introvigne's paper is predicting that the NRM term itself may be superceded, as has the term cult, and it is a huge, synthetic stretch to conclude from his paper that he is arguing for restricting the definition. Far from it, he is looking toward a alternative categorization scheme (and other scholars have made their own, differing proposals) that would replace the term NRM. That has not happened, or even begun to happen, however. Do we need to post quotes again from scholars that say that the term is broadly inclusive rather than narrow? I object to whittling away at the broadly inclusive definition that scholarship uses for NRM classification, which eventually begins to smack of WP:OR. &bull; Astynax talk 19:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The third sentence ("Scholars studying the sociology of religion have almost unanimously adopted this term as a neutral alternative to the word cult, which is often considered derogatory.[1][2]") has citations supporting the latter claim (that "cult" is derogatory) but not the former (that scholars "have almost unanimously adopted" the terminology NRM rather than "cult"). Does this claim need a citation? DrSocPsych (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Pictures
The article really could use some more pictures. I will add some that show major groups mentioned in a, hopefully, interesting way. Borock (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Image in "Joining" section
A recent series of edits have been trying to change image in the "Joining" section, of File:Casaemcasa.jpg, to instead be File:MISSIONNAIRES MORMONS.JPG. This is not helpful: the existing stable article version image is of Jehovah's Witnesses in the act of evangelising door-to-door, which clearly demonstrates some of the the actions being discussed in that section; the new image is of two men mugging for the camera, while wearing suits with the name badge used by Mormon missionaries, which only tangentially demonstrates what is being described in the article. One reason given in an edit summary for wanting the Mormon image is "The LDS missionary picture links to the LDS missionary article, which is better, because the JW have no special missionary article" — the descriptive text of an image used the article is not the key point, the image is, and the Mormon missionary image itself is of less utility than the Jehovah's Witnesses. Additionally there is a wikipedia article that include information about this specific activity (Jehovah's Witnesses practices) and the image description in my latest edit to the article reflects that. — Asterisk *  Splat → 21:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Opposition to new religious movements
The new article Opposition to new religious movements only lists a few facts. They're well-sourced, but I see no reason why a separate article is needed at this point. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 12:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I created the article, actually using material from this one, since there has been a template "Opposition to new religious movements" for quite a while but no article until now. I don't know if you want to merge the templates too. I would not object. Skylark777 (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead and merge the articles. I have no idea how to merge templates so I will not work on that now.  If someone disagrees my merge can be undone, of course. Skylark777 (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the templates need merging. But I don't see why every template should have a main page either. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 20:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Their titles are linked to a page. I think everything is fine now since that template (which is mainly about the anti-cult movement) now links to the section here. Skylark777 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsupported broad definition...continued
I asked a question, and no one responded. Then my question was archived. Is this normal practice? If so, I think it is a bad idea! This page can hardly be called cluttered; I'm rather new to editing Wikipedia, but what justification can there be for archiving questions that have not been addressed at all?

I wrote:

"The third sentence ("Scholars studying the sociology of religion have almost unanimously adopted this term as a neutral alternative to the word cult, which is often considered derogatory.[1][2]") has citations supporting the latter claim (that "cult" is derogatory) but not the former (that scholars "have almost unanimously adopted" the terminology NRM rather than "cult"). Does this claim need a citation?"

DrSocPsych (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Most talk pages are set up to be automatically archived after some time, generally after a given number of days after the last comment in a given thread. For several of the really contentious articles, where the talk page can have 30 or more threads started in a month, it saves a lot of manual labor in doing the archiving. Regarding your question, that is a good one, which I have some difficulty answering directly. Having looked over a lot of the recent reference literature, it definitely seems to me that the word "cult" has been pretty uniformly dropped from academic literature, and some of the following content in the article seems to indicate that the term NRM has been widely used as a substitute, but I have to agree I don't see anything that clearly supports the statement that the term has been "almost unanimously adopted." Generally, for lede sections, if something is referenced later in the appropriate section of an article, that citation is considered enough, but none of the later sources I see clearly support the claim, so some citation would be indicated. If you have such a citation, please feel free to produce it. Alternately, if you would wish to change the existing phrasing to something else, and have some degree of sourcing to support any particular contentions which might be made, please do so. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * [I got an error message that said "Edit conflict"] Okay, I see that the sentence was changed and a citation added without any comment in response to my question. DrSocPsych (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I just made a very slight change to the wording to match what it said in the new reference. Maybe a different reference would allow a stronger statement? DrSocPsych (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Edit conflict happens when you submit a change at the same time someone else is submitting a change. It happens kind of frequently on some articles. It would have been nice if whoever did the change chose to answer the comment on the talk page, but I know from personal experience sometimes that you can have two many screens open, feel the need to respond to something happening elsewhere first, and eventually forget or lose track of the response you were intending to make. If you had a source which would provide support for a stronger statement, and could produce a reference for it, that would definitely be welcome. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The original source for the unanimously adopted-claim (under dispute) is most probably the CESNUR-website (CESNUR): "Scholars did welcome these terms, and almost unanimously adopted them in order to avoid the derogatory words "cults" and "sects": but there was never a real agreement on definitions and boundaries." In this quotation the words 'these terms' (plural) refer to 'new religions' and 'new religious movements'. 81.206.112.118 (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion
The Arbitration Committee are proposing to combine the discretionary sanctions authorised for this topic area with those authorised in several similar areas. Details of the proposal are at Arbitration/Requests/Motions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  Read! Talk! 21:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on New religious movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091110132555/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA17/011/2000/en to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA17/011/2000/en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on New religious movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050512182518/http://www.boekencentrum.nl:80/info_english.tpl?cart=11079366993306 to http://www.boekencentrum.nl/info_english.tpl?cart=11079366993306

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Former members
This section as written doesn't live up to its billing. What little text there is on the subject is entirely occupied with a particular piece of sociological jargon that never explicitly ties to the section's title, although it does implicitly present a pretty one-sided skepticism of the the accounts of former members. What's more, it is written in a highly technical/academic register inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry of general interest. While I do think this article would be more complete with a complete treatment of the subject of former members, unless someone is willing to put in the work to rewrite it, I am going to delete the section. Grifter84 (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

how new is "new"?
Some of these movements go back over a century. Where is the criterion defined? ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It generally isn't, as the term "new religious movement" is, more or less, a single term which was basically used as a more politically correct term than "cult" or "sect", both of which it more or less replaces. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * However, there are a number of reference works, including some of those most used at List of new religious movements, which use either the older term "new religion" or the newer "new religious movement." John Carter (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Lots of information on the anti-cult movement
I tried trimming some of it down. It wasn't because the information is not important. It's just that it is already given in Anti-cult movement, Christian countercult movement, and Cult. Also most NRM's are not directly affected. BigJim707 (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not intrinsically opposed to trimming prose down but I do think that we need to be cautious when doing so. The anti-cult movement is given a fair bit of space in many of the key 'introductory' volumes written on NRMs by academics like Eileen Barker and David V. Barrett. If they consider it significant enough to warrant discussion in their introductory volumes then surely this article should follow their lead? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd also like to point out that cults are a real topic. They seem to be, in the popular mind at least, fairly small groups of very dedicated people who sometimes present a danger to society and themselves. The secular anti-cult movement is mainly concerned about them.  New religious movements are also a topic. Most are not so different from older religions.  I have friends in the Mormons, Bahais, and Unity.  They are not cult-like in the popular sense although they are opposed by traditional Christians over theological differences. Perhaps this article should not give so much space to cult issues, although certainly some.  Also the whole anti-cult thing peaked in the 70s and 80s while NRMs maintain their importance and probably will grow as religious freedom continues to expand around the world.BigJim707 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I just trimmed it a little by removing some duplicated material and putting paragraphs together.BigJim707 (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Is MOVE an ARM?
Its own article, MOVE, does not say it is. BigJim707 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Move "Definitions" section
The definitions section seems to be related to the Academic scholarship section at the bottom of the page. Should it be moved there. It is kind of long and is now pushing the sections that are actually about NRM's (not about what people call them) down the page. I have a feeling lots of readers don't get that far. BigJim707 (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried leaving the first part where it is and moving the subsection which is really more about people's reaction to the terms "NRM" "cult" and "sect" down to the reactions section. I think that avoids bogging down readers, while not removing any info.BigJim707 (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Celibacy?
I noticed the article doesn't talk about celibacy in NRMs. It seems like quite a few start out advocating members give up sex, and then later back down from that. The Shakers, the Unification Church, some of the New Thought groups, followers of Leo Tolstoy and St. Francis for example. Of course Jesus himself said this wasn't for everyone, but it seems like some groups get a lot of energy from this.70.213.18.232 (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable.BigJim707 (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

1910 reference of Messianic Judaism
The Religious Value of the Resurrection of Jesus in the Early Church by Wood, Irving F. Published December 1, 1910 https://ia601702.us.archive.org/3/items/jstor-3141453/3141453.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.64.105.52 (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"Violent incidents ... extremely rare and unusual", needs clarification
The present article contains: "Violent incidents involving NRMs are extremely rare and unusual." I think that this needs clarification: "extremely rare and unusual" compared with what? more unusual than with other, non-new, religious movements? more unusual than with other movements, religious or not, of a similar size? etc. And what would be used as a measure of degree of un/usualness? incidents per group per year? with allowance for group size?

The statement has several earlier versions in this article. The earliest version I have found is in this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_religious_movement&diff=prev&oldid=764210768 but this might not be the earliest. FrankSier (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The sentence is sourced to Barrett, David V. (2001). The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions. London: Cassell & Co. ISBN 978-0304355921. Do you suspect the source is misrepresented, weak, unreliable or biased?  We could attribute the sentence to Barrett.  JimRenge (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * What I am questioning is that "extremely rare and unusual" sounds like something related to statistics, and I think it should say just what those statistics are. I think it might be saying "NRMs have been associated with in some people's minds with violent incidents, but in fact NRMs are no more violent than other groups" or even "NRMs are less violent than average groups", or possibly something else; it is not clear. Also, as the statement has been modified several times, it might have significantly changed from what it originally said. So clarification is what I think it needs, and also possibly it is misrepresented. FrankSier (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

"In some Buddhist NRMs celibacy is practiced mostly by older women who become nuns"
First I want to say that I do not have direct, full access to the source from which this idea is supposed to be derived. I could not find something in the book (via Google's limited access) which supports this notion. But beside that, I find the source questionable.

It's strange to me that celibacy is cited as a distinguishing trait of Buddhist NRMs when it is not by any means "unusual" when one considers the Buddhist scriptural basis for celibacy, along with the way it is treated in Buddhist cultures (i.e. it is esteemed). I know male and female celibates, and while they are not common (particularly in certain mainstreams), it is not part of a larger movement - it is a determination they have set for themselves in the context of their practice where they follow the 8 precepts.

The book here has a section which describes celibacy as working for "only a few exceptional women" and in denial of "affective needs". While it certainly is said to take skill and determination to follow through with this commitment in a way which is healthy (and indeed unhealthy idealism can cause and perpetuate suffering), the Buddhist teachings emphasize that renunciation of pleasures leads to the end of suffering, for anyone, including the laity - it is part of the eightfold path, namely right intention; it does not inherently deny affective needs (though it can when approached in the wrong way, as said above). The author's suggestion that females seek the more "world-accepting" model of sexuality, while not terribly wrong or evil, is questionable and likely a product of biases. Although sexuality is utilized in tantric practices, Theravadin Buddhists such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu have noted that the push for "sexual freedom" is dominant in "Buddhist-Romantic" contexts - that is, contexts in which the Buddha's teachings of liberation from suffering is demoted to states of "oneness" if not states of being where one is simply better able to enjoy and engage with sensual pleasure, and in which the propagators find the origins of their teachings in "Western" philosophy. So is celibacy really the NRM, or is it sexuality? Again, keeping in mind that the Buddha never said sex was "wrong" but that it was an obstacle to realizing the goal - regardless of one's biological sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLCD96 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Article's subject unclear, rewriting for coherency seems appropriate.
If, as is stated, "There is no single, agreed-upon criterion for defining a new religious movement", and indeed no single agreed-upon name for one "new religious movement (NRM), also known as a new religion or an alternative spirituality", it would seem the article is neither sure what it is describing or even what that thing is to be called. The nature of this website means articles have the potential to be schizophrenic in this manner, but this is something that ought to be amended when it occurs. Compounding this is an ambiguity as to whether the subject of the article is primarily the phenomenon of the "new religious movement", or the development and use of the term itself; it is likewise no good beginning by saying "There is debate as to how the term "new" should be interpreted in this context" and then having the article immediately proceed to matter-of-factly list religious movements since 1830.

Consider such paragraphs as: "As noted by Barker, NRMs cannot all be "lumped together" and differ from one another on many issues. Virtually no generalisation can be made about NRMs that applies to every single group, with Barrett noting that "generalizations tend not to be very helpful" when studying NRMs. Melton expressed the view that there is "no single characteristic or set of characteristics" that all new religions share, "not even their newness." Bryan Wilson wrote, "Chief among the miss-directed assertions has been the tendency to speak of new religious movements as if they differed very little, if at all, one from another. The tendency has been to lump them altogether and indiscriminately to attribute to all of them characteristics which are, in fact, valid for only one or two." NRMs themselves often claim that they exist at a crucial place in time and space." - how can we know what NRMs claim without knowing what is and is not a NRM? The article reads as a sort of darkly comedic parody as a result of being presented in this way.

This sort of near-nonsense where an article is arguing with itself is not, I think, what this website is aiming for. I suggest the article be rewritten to focus primarily on the use and development of the idea of the new religious movement as a descriptive term in sociology, which seems ultimately to be the real focus of the article, and which would then also allow the information concerning the religious movements in question to be contextually presented in a coherent manner ancillary to the sociological debates about them. Alternatively, the confusing interjections to the tune of no one being sure what exactly a new religious movement is and that the people claiming to study them are in disagreement on more-or-less everything could be removed, or at least confined to one specific section, with one approach to the field being made primary and not constantly being gainsaid.

Unfortunately I do not feel qualified for the task, but I'll leave this out there in the hope someone will pick up the torch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.19.57 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is questioning that NRMs are a "thing." The article is mainly for readers who want to know about that thing, not about how the expression is used.  WP has many articles on things that are not clearly defined.  Check out mountain and tree. PopSci (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Does Falun Gong count as one
On the Falun Gong page, it says it is, but as far as I know it is an extremist group. Jishiboka1 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It can be both. Editor2020 (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They have a paragraph in the article about them. Burgundy1983 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)