User talk:Accidental Sociologist

Welcome!
Hello, Accidental Sociologist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Roger Bastide. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jerod Lycett (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will Accidental Sociologist (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020
Hello, I'm Curb Safe Charmer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jason Martin (artist), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Chryssides, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stephen Kent and James Beckford ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/George_Chryssides check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/George_Chryssides?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Thanks for creating the article for Ethel Shanas: super important to cover important women scientists,

Sadads (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC) 

Thanks Accidental Sociologist (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Editorializing
Hello. I've noticed that much of your additions include editorializing. Please do not add original research, and do not include your own personal interpretations of sources. Further, do not combine multiple sources to support a conclusion which is not made by any source alone (see WP:SYNTH). Observations about the "cult wars", etc. should come directly from reliable sources. Context about this field should come from reliable sources. Directly summarize reliable sources from a neutral point of view.

In other words, please be more careful in sticking to what sources say without injecting your own opinions. Do not present opinions as examples or larger trends unless sources specifically treat them as examples.

Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I noticed how you changed my edit on the academic study of NRMs. Perhaps you can explain in more details. The book edited by Gallagher on cult wars looks like a reliable source to me, and includes many chapters all using the term “cult wars” to refer to the same phenomenon from different points of view. Question: is it better to quote sentences from reliable sources in full (with the risk of making the text too long) or to summarize them? Thanks Accidental Sociologist (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Specifically on the edited article, please explain how the distinction between the two paradigms, “cultic studies” and “NRM studies” can be re-introduced. It is a key topic in the two books tracing the history of this specific academic field (Arweck’s and Ashcraft’s) and I believe it should be mentioned, although perhaps in a shorter way. What about “In their historical books about the academic study of new religious movements, both Elizabeth Arweck and Michael Ashcraft emphasized the opposition between two paradigms, “cultic studies,” emphasizing the dangerous aspects of movements they identified as cults, and “NRM studies,” generally sympathetic to the movements, avoiding the word “cult,” and denying the existence of brainwashing. Both Arweck and Ashcraft acknowledged that valuable contributions came from both sides.” Accidental Sociologist (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, summarize reliable sources in proportion to their significance and relevance. Think about it from the perspective of a reader: The main goal of an encyclopedia is to summarize complicated topics. The sources we use do not have the same goal. These sources will include details, editorial perspectives, research, and many other things which do not necessarily belong in an article. The goal should be a simple summary, using direct language in a formal tone. Do not use quotes unless they are either absolutely necessary (and then with restraint) or if they are supported by third-party sources as being especially significant to the topic.
 * To put it another way, if you cannot explain something succinctly, you should not be using arbitrarily selected quotes, instead. Do not use quotes as a substitute for editing.
 * Also, please be very careful that these sources are, in fact, reliable. This applies to all articles, but the study of NRMs in particular suffers from a glut of questionable scholarship, as I'm sure you've noticed.
 * So more specifically, "cult wars" is only a "key topic" if sources specifically say that it's a "key topic". Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We do not, as editors, combine sources and present our own conclusions. Further, do not present a false dichotomy in Wikipedia's voice. We do not assume that there are only "two sides", nor that each "side" is equivalent. In this case, if Arweck and Ashcraft both draw lines between "sides" and both agree that valid contributions came from these sides... readers are not going to understand who these people are or why this perspective matters. This is just one reason we need to be very careful not to allow editorializing to come into the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Here is my point. Arweck and Ashcraft wrote the only two books on the history of the academic study of NRMs I am aware of. Arweck has more sympathy for the cultic studies perspective and Ashcraft states explicitly that he writes from the NRM studies perspective (however, he recognizes that Stephen Kent in particular, although writing from the cultic studies perspective, offered highly valuable contributions). Why is this important? Because, precisely, the existence of two irreconcilable paradigms explains the controversy in NRM studies. There is a difference here between scholarly books like Arweck’s and Ashcraft’s and newspaper articles, or pieces scholars on both sides of the controversy wrote to attack each other particularly in the 20th century. The latter sources would emphasize that NRM scholars received money from the cults and that cultic studies scholars received money from the anti-cult movements. Both statements are probably true, but they somewhat trivialize the matter, which the above-mentioned books describe as a conflict of paradigms. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Is this your first Wikipedia account? Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes Accidental Sociologist (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I have another question. I see you reverted some of my quotes from the Italian “Catalogo dei viventi.” In fact, I have used this source for confirming biographical data on several entries. It is a useful library source as it includes short bios of thousands of Italian living persons. His main author has a page in the Italian Wikipedia. It was used often in the Italian Wikipedia but has been used in the English Wikipedia as well by other editors long before me: see eg and  and  (there are more). Thanks for explaining. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure you did notice that I removed that book from Massimo Introvigne. If you noticed the large banner across that article mentioning its autobiography issues, I assume you also know why I'm asking about other accounts.
 * Every Wikipedia project sets their own standards and guidelines, and content is judged on its own merits. Having an article for the author (regardless of language) doesn't make a source reliable, because reliability isn't a popularity contest. Some projects are more relaxed for this, and some are stricter, but all sources everywhere are judged in context. Sources which may be usable in one situation, or at another Wikipedia project, might not be usable in another situation.
 * As for the work itself, this appears to be similar to the "Who's Who" books which turn up in English. These books range from very useful to flagrant scams, with everything in between. Among other serious concerns is that these are functionally WP:PRIMARY sources. Most of these books repeat information they received from the subjects without any further verification or fact checking. This one is unlikely to be different, since it lists over 7,000 people. The Introvigne article already has serious WP:COI and promotional issues, so I do not accept that this book is automatically reliable without much more info. You are free to bring it up at WP:RSN if you disagree.
 * When I asked if this was your first account, I meant across all of Wikipedia, not just English Wikipedia. Since you mention a familiarity with Italian Wikipedia, please clarify: is this your first and only account for any Wikipedia/Wikimedia project?
 * Assuming this is your only account, I would suggest that you slow down and look more carefully at what I am telling you. As I have now said multiple times, Wikipedia isn't a platform for WP:OR. If something is important to an topic, you should be able to summarize it using formal, neutral language in a way that explains to readers why it is important, or who thinks it is important. Grayfell (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time for a detailed explanation. No, I do not have Wikipedia accounts in other languages. I do speak Italian, French, and Portuguese and have a working knowledge of Russian and Spanish but decided to devote the time I have for Wikipedia to the English edition only.

The issue of the “Catalogo dei viventi” is not very important, as the information is probably available elsewhere. I used it in that article to confirm a birth date and where Introvigne studied, which did not seem to be controversial information. Just for the record, the “Catalogo,” that you can probably find in a nearby library, is not similar to the “Who’s Who.” Most of the vignettes about living Italians were published by Dell’Arti in his column appearing for years in several daily newspapers before being collected in a biographical dictionary and, besides including biographical data, were supposed to be entertaining and often included his personal humorous remarks. What Dell’Arti tried to do is explained in this interview.

It is a good suggestion that I devote some time to study the available pages on WP:SYNTH and neutrality before editing on controversial subjects. You may have noticed that most of my edits are in two fields I believe I know something about, sociology and stage magic. The main reasons I decided to contribute to Wikipedia is that I found how these fields are covered unsatisfying. The coverage of stage magicians is uneven: some important in the history of the field had no entries, some minor ones were discussed at length. And some entries on living stage magicians look like they have been written by their publicists (I eliminated some obviously promotional sentences here and there: it is typical of magicians to claim they are “the greatest in their field” etc.).

Stage magic is less contentious than sociology. Even in the field of sociology, I felt some entries were missing (e.g. Ethel Shanas, which I found strange), others were just stubs with little content, and some in sociology of religions where just battlefields with promotional content “balanced” by negative comments found here and there on the Internet. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of scholars of new religious movements. Some paragraphs on the entry on Stephen A. Kent seems to be a collection of pro and con miscellaneous comments. At the other extreme of the opinions’ spectrum, the entry you paid attention to, on Massimo Introvigne appears to have been first created as a promo page and then “corrected” with negative news clippings (same for the companion entry CESNUR). In no way I dispute the usefulness of quoting criticism, but what is missing is some summary of reliable literature discussing why these persons and entities are relevant in the history of the study and controversies on new religious movements in the first place.

Finally, I found in Wikipedia in general an excessive reliance on sources freely available on the Internet, while in my fields crucial info is found in journals protected by a paywall or not in the Internet at all, and in books partially or not available at all on the Web. In the field of stage magic, most journals (some of them in my own collection) are not available on the Internet, or only the indexes are - but they are the most important journals in the specific field. And in sociology publishers of journals want to make money and make them available only to subscribers.

These are some general comments. I will now try to study the relevant pages on Wikipedia general principles and will ask further questions when something is not clear. I do understand that on some controversial subjects cautions should be exerted, but this should not be a reason to leave articles in bad shape or omit information good sources regard as relevant. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but your comments show an unacceptable misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. WP:OR applies to all articles, not just "controversial" ones. You need to be more careful everywhere you edit. I appreciate that you acknowledge my advice, but you need to slow down and read it properly. As I have tried to explain to you, Wikipedia isn't interested in false balance, and your over-eagerness to defend CESNUR suggests that you have missed this point completely. You also need to learn to be more succinct, both in articles and in talk pages. Even here, in this discussion, you are rushing to share information which you, personally know without actually considering if it is relevant. Wikipedia isn't a platform for small-talk or name-dropping. Most experienced editors already know about Wikipedia's FUTON bias, so sharing your personal thoughts on this is not productive. Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I had no idea a page about FUTON bias already existed. On the other hand, I did read in WP:NOTFORUM that “You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk page” but not in articles. I see I perhaps misinterpreted, but I understood this to mean that pages like this one are the proper place to share opinions and thoughts. Of course, I do appreciate that nobody should waste others’ valuable time, and apologize if I inadvertently did. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, your additions related to CESNUR include excessive levels of detail supported by obscure or primary sources. Please tone-down the promotional language, and please try to avoid run-on sentences. These are never appropriate for formal writing. I remind you that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, and the way to prove that you do not have a conflict of interest is to stop adding promotional content about CESNUR and its affiliated scholars. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I tried to stick to a non-editioralizing practice, having studied your previous criticism. Btw the lengthy details about Barker and Melton in CESNUR were not added by me. I agree they do not belong to the entry. I will re-introduce incrementally some details about Massimo Introvigne and you can tell me whether they are appropriate or not, trying to make the entry more better-referenced than it currently is. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Academic study of new religious movements
Hi Accidental Sociologist, I noticed in this edit you added Gallagher 2016, but I can't find a source for this! There is a Gallagher 2006... did you mean that? I've hidden the reference until we can sort this out. Let me know if you need any help! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)