Talk:Stephen A. Kent/Archive 1

Reverting Introvigne, Melton and Lewis criticism
Reverting back to my additions. No one is allowed to censor Wikipedia. All points of views should be represented!! This is Wikipedia policy.

Massimo Introvigne (Founding Director of CESNUR) and Gordon Melton (founding director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion) are leading sociologists. They have world recognition. If you want to counter their statements, look for other experts to do so, but no one is allowed to remove important contributions from important experts. Pradeshkava 04:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edit
I'm about to undo today's edit because quite frankly, although it appears to offer fresh details, it has removed existing footnotes and in my opinion made the article less understandable to the average reader. Should the editor who posted this correct their edit's shortcomings and provide reliable referencing for the new information I have no objection to seeing it replaced. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability
The only indication of notability is that of Raj Persaud, not for Kent. Barring the insertion of more material indicating Kent's notability per WP:PROF, the page is a possibility for deletion. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 12:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible sources


Some possible sources to use in the article. Cirt (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While obviously any properly vetted source can be considered for use in the article, at present, given the current controversy surrounding the editing practises related to Scientology articles in general and contextually the fact that Kent is himself an academic; wouldn't we be on "safer" ground trying to focus in on primarily attempting to derive new source material from the academic literature rather than more "popular" accounts? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Academic literature might not have biographical information on the individual. I'll try to work on expanding this article. Cirt (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that the majority of straightforward "biographical information" for Dr. Kent will be obtainable from fairly non-controversial sources in the main. One of my concerns was that all fourteen of the potential references you provided, appeared to be popular accounts focused on Scientology. Although his study of Scientology and the associated disputes that have accompanied it are obviously well known, because this is a biography of a living person, my hope is that the article will reflect a more generalized overview of Kent's life and academic career as whole. There is obviously a need to explore some of the controversy in a responsible fashion, but I'm hoping that due weight and neutrality will play a role in the avoidance of turning a large part of the article into an extended "controversy" section that deals exclusively with just one group. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the "research" section, now I'm afraid that the comments I expressed above, at least in one sense, are being taken *too* literally! :) In all seriousness though, from an overall perspective my personal reading of the current version of the article tends toward viewing it as a little too "promotional" in both content and tone. One of my concerns is related to the fact that, although for years now there has been a well documented "vigorous debate" between Dr. Kent and a substantial number of his colleagues in the study of new religions regarding what they allege are serious shortcomings concerning Dr. Kent's basic methodological approach to the study of many of these groups, there is nary a mention of this in the article. To present a section titled "research" in this article without even a hint of the challenges to his work that Dr. Kent has faced over the years from many of his peers, is veering into a non-neutral position in terms of the policy of the encyclopedia in my opinion, and because of that, I intend on placing an appropriate template on the section until the matter has been resolved through consensus. One quote in the section, attributed to the "Editor-in-Chief of The Village Voice" is of special concern to me. If taken literally by a general reader of the encyclopedia, the claim "one of the few academics who studies Scientology in depth" could easily erroneously be understood to mean that in fact few scholars apart from Dr. Kent actually seriously study Scientology, this is simply not true. Granted, the study of new religions itself is a relatively small field when compared to other endeavours within social science, but personally I'd venture a guess that Scientology as an academic object of study is easily a contender for the single most studied group within this context and has been looked at in depth by many scholars from a number of disciplines, all as equally qualified as Dr. Kent. In short, the editor in chief of the Village Voice may have "said" it, and we can quote it, but that doesn't necessarily mean he or she is in a position to be able to speak authoritatively on the subject. I'm hoping that we, in conjunction with other editors, can continue a dialogue that will result in improving what I think are serious shortcomings in certain aspects of this articles. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote trimmed . Cirt (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; good catch. ::I see that while I was writing my comments, the process had already begun. :) Although material has been added, I'm still not seeing what I would consider a balanced presentation of the criticisms that other mainstream social science scholars have made of Dr. Kent, in particular those associated with groups like CESNUR and others. Although there is always going to be differences on this subject within the disciplines, I believe that we have to try and achieve a balance of opinion from the various strains of thought present within mainstream thought. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that I ever considered Michael Shermer as authoritative in this field of study.  cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That particular book is published by University of California Press. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I was only offering a personal perspective. I don't have any problem with varying opinion, my objection is with material in articles that fails to reflect a well rounded view of a given subject, which in my understanding, is an important objective in the encyclopedia. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Earlier you had voiced concern/objection to using the above listed sources at the top of this subsection. I have worked hard researching the topic, and have since added a good deal of information from other sources, such that this particular topic of his research is only one third of that subsection in the article. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's true, and you're to be commended on the time you've already put into this. However, I'm still not seeing any referenced material regarding specific criticisms of Dr. Kent's alleged biases regarding his basic approach in this field of study. They've been levelled at him over the years by a fair number of his colleagues in the literature and in my opinion a balanced article should contain examples of them. At present, in my opinion the article can still be construed as Dr. Kent having no responsible critics at all. That is simply not the case. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire first paragraph of the Research subsection places Kent within the "cult/new religious movement" camp, on the "cult" side of the debate. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

CBS News
Typo, my mistake. Cirt (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, it was obviously a minor slip. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page
Unsourced, moved from article to talk page, info can be added back in, if/when sourced. Cirt (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Accomplishments
His radio appearances include the Australian Broadcast Company.(Australia), BBC Five Live (UK) and many radio shows in Canada and the United States. His television appearances include CTV National News, CBC Canada Now, Vision TV's Test of Faith (Canada); CBS Public Eye, ABC Prime Time, Larry King Live, CBS 48 Hours Mystery and ABC 20/20.

He oversees the Stephen A. Kent Collection on Alternative Religions, housed in the University of Alberta library system, which is one of the largest collections of its kind in North America.

Kent has been on the editorial advisory committee of the Journal of Religion and Popular Culture since Spring 2004. He has been on the editorial board of Cultic Studies Review since 2002 and was the associate editor of Sociological Analysis in Spring 1988.

POV tag
POV tag removed. No WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources were presented on the article's talk page to substantiate this tag. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I'm a little taken aback regarding the unilateral removal of this tag. I didn't place it without due consideration of its necessity and I honestly believe that anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of Dr. Kent's past relations with other scholars in his field, would instantly spot what appears to me to be curious absence of detail in the article pertaining to challenges Kent has faced concerning accusations of "questionable methodology" from mainstream authorities within the social sciences. To have these sorts of criticisms launched at an academic by his peers is no trifling matter, especially when they originate from within the mainstream of someone's own discipline. To say that the article already contains a single mention that Kent falls within a particular "camp" in an ongoing academic dispute, in my opinion, grossly understates both the breadth and depth of disagreement that has occurred within this academic discipline between Kent and many of his "colleagues" within the past ten or fifteen years, on issues as basic as professional competency; these are not minor issues of neutrality, careers can rise and fall based on their outcome. Our discussion here has thus far raised several obvious possible avenues for further research to add detail to the article regarding these ongoing disputes, I'd suggest that the CESNUR organization and its affiliated scholars past conflicts with Kent would be an excellent starting point. I've reviewed WP:NPOVD and I'm somewhat confused by your contention that a lack of specific references here on the talk page substantiates the removal of a neutrality tag in this case, because of that, I'm going to replace it, in the hope that other interested editors will notice it and help to provide details to improve the present situation. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do not back up your assertions of "POV" with WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources here on the talk page then your unilateral edit-warring to add the POV tag is disruptive in nature. Please stop. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here. Your claims need to be backed up. This is a BLP and should be treated with the care due to articles about living persons. I must ask you to back up your claims with sources or discontinue this line of argument. Thank you. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 00:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just stumbled on this, and I would say that ..you can't just go around sticking neutrality tags on articles without at least a few cites to back it up, that would be disruptive. The article is well written and cited. If you haven't got any cites to support your claim then the neutrality tag has to go, you can't put it there to attract editors to do something to it. You would be better coming to the talk page with something cited and relevant that you want to insert. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

Kent has indeed been criticized by other scholars in the past -- usually related to his research on NRMs. However, people who are completely focused on "cult" related POV wars don't know about what he published on Satanic ritual abuse (SRA) in the journal Religion in 1993. He was heavily criticized by historian David Frankfurter and anthropologist J.S. Lafontaine in subsequent issues. It is noteworthy that neither Lafontaine nor Frankfurter have Wikipedia entries though they are arguably more accomplished in their fields (Lafontaine is without doubt more accomplished than either of them). The impetus behind creating entries for second tier academics is usually completely political and it makes the encyclopedia look like crap (no offense to Kent of course because most academics aren't even second teir).
 * Kent, Stephen A. (1993). "Deviant Scripturalism and Ritual Satanic Abuse Part One: Possible Judeo-Christian Influences". Religion 23(3):229–241
 * Kent, Stephen A. (1993). "Deviant Scripturalism and Ritual Satanic Abuse Part Two: Possible Masonic, Mormon, Magick and Pagan Influences". Religion 23(4):355-367
 * La Fontaine, J.S. (1994). "Discussion: Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Satanic Rituals." Religion 24:181-184.
 * Frankfurter, D (1994). "Religious Studies and Claims of Satanic Ritual Abuse: A Rejoinder to Stephen Kent". Religion 24:353–360
 * Kent, Stephen A. (1994). "Diabolic Debates: A Reply to David Frankfurter and J S La Fontaine." Religion 24:361-378.
 * La Fontaine, J.S. and Frankfurter, David. (1995). "Replies to Stephen Kent." Religion 25:91-92.

The fact is that the SRA activist fringe is just as excited about some of Kent's positions as "cult" critics are. While it is certainly arguable that many of those who attack Kent's methodology on "cult" related issues do so out of self-defense (since often he is critical of their relationships with NRMs and not always without reason), this SRA issue is of a different sort altogether. One does not have to hold an opinion on his scholarship to recognize the controversy surrounding some of it. The unfortunate part is that Kent most likely would not have an entry but for the "cult critics" who want to establish notability for someone whose publishings they see as a vital component to their cause. By creating and then polishing such an entry for political purposes one unwittingly opens up the entry to BLP concerns because others then want to "balance" the entry with criticism. The easiest way to keep these possible BLP issues from occurring is to stop creating and editing entries on living people from the POV of such an obvious political agenda. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What I've found to be particularly vexing during this exchange, is the notion that the mere suggestion that in the past aspects of Kent's work have been deemed "controversial" by other competent scholars, is somehow a controversial claim in itself. My contention continues to be that any responsible contributing editor who is prepared to explore sources regarding Kent beyond those contained in popular media accounts would be hard pressed not to encounter the controversy I'm alluding to. In an attempt at demonstrating WP:AGF, I'm placing the proposed material below on the talk page first, to encourage other good faith editors to make comment regarding both its content and suggestions as to where it might best be located in the article. The statement regarding "scientific objectivity" is directly quoted from Frankfurter [1994].

Proposed addition and references:

Certain aspects of Kent's work have received strong criticism from other scholars in the past based on what are alleged to be its flawed methodological approach and lack of "scientific objectivity".

Raising Lazurus: A Methodological Critique of Stephen Kent's Revival of the Brainwashing Model. in In B. Zablocki and T. Robbins (eds,).: Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field,2001 Toronto: University of Toronto Press, ISBN 0-8020-8188-6, 379-400

Anson Shupe reviews: Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field. by Benjamin Zablocki; Thomas Robbins, Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 5 (Sep., 2002), p. 572

Agents Of Discord: Deprogramming, Pseudo-Science, and the American Anticult Movement..Anson Shupe,Susan Darnell .Transaction Publishers, New Jersey 2006.,ISBN:0765803232 pgs. 135-136

Religious Studies and Claims of Satanic Ritual Abuse: A Rejoinder to Stephen Kent. Religion 24:353-360 ; David Frankfurter 1994, pg 355

cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I know almost nothing about this guy, but the comment looks well cited to me, there is always some critisism of everything, I am left wondering. in what way was it strong and who ..worthy of mention has critisised his work? (Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC))


 * As far as the SRA issue goes J.S. La Fontaine and David Frankfurter are "worthy of mention". Both are well respected scholars in their fields who have written two of the most notable books on the subject.  Frankfurter has methodological expertise in "religious studies" (as a historian of religion) and La Fontaine in the "social sciences" (as a social anthropologist) -- the two fields Kent was engaging in his essays.  Most notable here is that neither critic crosses over into Kent's own criticism of NRM scholars, and until he wrote those essays on SRA they had no quibbles with him whatsoever.  In other words there is no way to claim some political motivation in their critiques.  Anyway I am not trying to impugn the guy (or most of his work), it is just that the initial dismissal of the good faith tagging by Deconstructhis needs to be re-evaluated.  Kent is to some extent controversial.  That's simply a fact.PelleSmith (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I still disagree with the neutrality tag. It looks like the comments and cites you and decon have are incertable ..so put them in. Be bold. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm not interested in editing the page, but I think Deconstructhis should add whatever material is relevant and remove the tag. However, perhaps Decon is also frustrated that editors who are probably well aware of these issues remove the tags.  If so I can understand that frustration quite well.  But you make a good point.  Make the changes and remove the tag.PelleSmith (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pellesmith, you seem well informed, I can only suggest your contributions to the article would be a benefit,Decon can add the material without the tag. The tag is not needed. As I said the article is well written and very well cited.. You can't say that the article is biased and insert your cite and then remove the tag as if your fab edit has balanced the article. Feel free to edit to add balance but forget the tag. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC))
 * No thanks. Good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This is a WP:BLP and I echo the concerns raised above by that unfortunately certain editors may have a desire to attack this individual with the claim of "balance", purely for political purposes. Certainly we must avoid giving WP:Undue weight to individuals affiliated with fringe type groups that wish to besmirch this BLP individual. I'd like to see some direct quotes from the above-mentioned sources and further discuss these proposed additions, which seem to have no purpose other than to attack this living person. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from proposed sources
I'm not sure I see anyone here with those political motivations. I see someone who is worried about POV problem. Here are some rather harsh quotes concerning the SRA issue since you are so interested (emphasis mine): Frankfurter 1994 La Fontaine 1995 Frankfurter 1995 I suggest reading the rest of my above comments more carefully. WP:BLP is a concern with living academics, always, but creating and maintaining entries on such persons for political purposes inevitably opens up a can of worms. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Indeed, Kent states that he was granted interviews 'in return for my efforts to assist them with interpreting their memories after I had recorded them'(p. 231)—a research scenario lacking in scientific objectivity and of dubious ethics." (p. 355)
 * "To approach the Satanic conspiracy in ignorance of these social dynamics, to present the data is merely a series of strikingly coincidental testimonies, and then to seek background scattered Bible verses and doctrines, is to turn the discipline of religious studies into heresiography.”(p. 357)"
 * "It is not an innocent myth for which Kent imagines his evidence but, historically, a lethal one." (p. 357)
 * "The reputation of social science rests, as it should do, on the intellectual probity of its arguments and the rigour of its methodology, not on an abdication of professional reasoning in favour of advocating belief in any emotional claims, however powerfully they may be presented and no matter how credible the claimants." (p. 92)
 * "There is much else in Kent’s rejoinder that is inaccurate and/or misleading but to go through it piecemeal would become tedious. To me it serves to substantiate my suspicion that the original article was a work of advocacy rather than academic analysis." (p. 92)
 * "What is of greater concern is his dismissal of a psychiatrist and research psychologist, both of considerable renown in the field of memory, not for the intrinsic merits of their work and publications but for advising an organization devoted to the problem of cultivated memories. This recourse to ad hominem attack on scholars bespeaks a disturbing intellectual insularity—the formation of a sectarian ‘believers’ school’ unable to maintain communication with scholars who tackle these phenomena in the context of religious studies, history, sociology, or research psychology." (p. 92)
 * Ironically, it was out of a sense of fairness to Kent, that I deliberately restricted my direct quotation of the source material in my proposal to a single mention of an allegation of a lack of "scientific objectivity", even here on the talk page. The rhetoric utilized in some of the criticisms in these sources, although included in reputable books and journals, is occasionally even harsher, as PelleSmith has demonstrated with a few examples and there are others as well. The fact that this type of invective occurs at all and continues through time in vetted mainstream academic publications written by a number of accepted authorities on a subject is surely indicative in itself that the subject is a controversial one. All that I'm seeking is a simple inclusion to redress in some form what I consider to be an imbalance in the POV of the article. Is it really necessary to trot out every negative potentially damaging rhetorical flourish regarding his work contained in these sources in order to substantiate a simple claim that he's regarded as a controversial figure within his field? If so: why? By my count, we now have somewhere around a half dozen separate full citations from reliable academic sources in front of us in support of what I'm contending. Are the sources themselves being contested? If so, please let's address that directly and immediately. In terms of concerns regarding "due weight", I'd suggest that in the context of an 850 word article on a subject, a twenty word sentence with four academically sourced references in it contending something that is transparently obvious after only a cursory amount of research is hardly unfair, nor does it constitute an "attack" in my mind. Finally, I would like to address Cirt directly and ask you in future to please refrain from making unsubstantiated (and in this case preposterous) accusations alleging lack of good faith or neutrality on the part of other editors. There are definite expectations within the community centred on the anticipation of proper conduct on the part of administrators when interacting with other editors, and personally I believe that you have failed in this regard. Even if we are opposed in our basic approach to things like the contextually appropriate placement of POV tags, there is no need whatsoever to provocatively accuse someone out of the blue, however indirectly, of being a shill for "fringe groups". Please, let's just stick to the material at hand.  thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay perhaps a twenty word sentence with four academically sourced references in it would not be unreasonable, I will think about drafting something up to satisfy that suggestion. Cirt (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hexham source
Irving Hexham commented in a 2001 article in Nova Religio: that Kent is an exception to neutral tone of canadian academics on new religious movements, and that his few agree with his finding and most disagree due to his tendency to focus on ex-members accounts for information.

Is this a direct quote? What is the actual text used? If it is a quote, it should be within quotations, and not passed of as if it is not... -- Cirt (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is direct quote: "The one exception to the generally neutral tone of Canadian aca- demics and their rejection of anticult rhetoric35 is Stephen Kent, who has been outspoken in his criticism of many new religions, particularly Scientology, and who works closely with various anticult groups. Although Kent’s views are widely known, few Canadian academics agree with his findings and most disagree quite strongly because of his tendency to use the testimony of ex-members. " I though i summarized it well Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it appears to be extremely poorly worded. Removed pending further examination. -- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How so? Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, used the direct quote itself, this time in quotations and not plagiarized . Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info from Research section
- not sure why this was removed. It is notable info about this WP:BLP's area of research. -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen A. Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709230659/http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-06-24/news/Scientologys-Crushing-Defeat/full to http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-06-24/news/Scientologys-Crushing-Defeat/full

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)