Archive 1 Archive 2

Tilman Hausherr merge

It has been suggested and seconded that we merge Tilman Hausherr here, to Opposition to cults and new religious movements. His only notability, and there is not much RS to support it, is that he is a critic of Scientology. As far as software, authors of minor (and most major) software are not notable simply for that and are not included here. While "this one doesn't have an article" arguments are not really valid, it has been mentioned already that Irfan Skiljan, author of IrfanView, one of the most popular Windows freeware programs ever developed, does not have a bio here. --Justanother 14:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 

Hey Fossa, could you vote merge or oppose? Thanks John196920022001 11:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge John196920022001 16:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Listed Tilman Hausherr for 3rd AFD

Inaccessible sentence

I consider myself an individual of at least average intelligence, but this sentence boggled my mind: "Christianity itself, formed by the debates which gradually defined orthodoxy in contradistinction to the various heresies it eventually succeeded in stamping out, reached the point where it identified with the secular powers and gave short shrift to religious innovation." Can someone please make that easier to read or should I just move to the Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia. I think it says that Christianity went from a new religion facing opposition to one that opposed other new religions, but please, "contradistinction"? --SVTCobra 00:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"discrimination"

I deleted the "discrimination" footer bar, because "opposition" is not discrimination and nowhere in the article is spoken obout discrimination. I explained this clearly in edit summary, but was reverted twice without explanations. I find this quite insulting. `'Míkka 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Brainwashing controversy

Propose NPOV split of "cult watching" and merge of "anti-cult" relating elements

Moved combined discussion to Talk:Anti-cult_movement#Merge_and_Split.

--Soulslearn (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevant information from this entry should be merged with the ACM entry

I'm not sure why this entry exists in the first place. The title is completely unrecognizable outside of Wikipedia. The academic term for groups opposing NRMs is "Anti-cult" and they are thought to be part of the "Anti-cult movement". Some of the more academic groups and individuals mentioned here, who may not be part of the anti-cult movement, are hardly in "opposition to ..." NRMs and cults in the first place. Relevant information should be merged and this entry should be a redirect or simply deleted given that no one would use these terms to search for the subject matter anyway.PelleSmith (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Blanking the section about skeptics

Pelle, your rationale for blanking an entire section about the criticism against NRMs from the skeptical movement appears forced to me. I am active in that movement, and I can assure you that a) it is a rather large international movement, b) it is vocally critical against NRMs. Therefore, I will reinstate the section you keep deleting unless you offer a good argument against its inclusion. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin, if you provide reliable sources which establish the notability of this skepticism in terms of "opposing cults" then please do reinstate the material. The very small statement about this had no references and was entirely general. We do not add such statements to every entry that deals with beliefs in supernatural phenomena or groups that may hold such beliefs. If this particular issue is notable, as you seem to suggest, then the notability should be established first. My rationale for deletion deals with notability (please see both edit summaries).PelleSmith (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Come on now, you're just being difficult. The skeptical movement's central tenet is its skepticism against paranormal claims. There does not exist any religion, old or new, that makes no such claims. If you feel that such information needs sourcing, then please go ahead and add some sources. But it's like sourcing the statement that the Pope has a funny hat. As for notability, this is an article about opposition to NRMs. Surely every major movement or school of thought that opposes NRMs belongs here. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear. Yes of course skepticism rejects supernatural beliefs. But we don't add information about skepticism to every entry related to supernatural beliefs. We would only do so if the particular situation were notable, otherwise every entry on every religious group, for instance, would have a section about how people belonging to the skeptical movement oppose their beliefs. The criteria for inclusion is notability -- please see WP:N for further guidance. If it is notable then please provide some sources. Just to be clear ... I agree 100% that people in the skeptical movement would be opposed to any supernatural beliefs espoused by NRMs, but again that is not the point. (I have also removed my name from the section heading as it is not considered polite by current Wikipedia standards to put user names in talk page section headings -- no offense taken of course). Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The title of this article is "Opposition to cults and new religious movements". In my opinion, any group or organisation notable enough to be in Wikipedia belongs here if one of its main characteristics is that it opposes cults and NRMs. I'll ask a few other editors to have a look at the issue. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The question her is I think at least in part about the definitions of the terms "cult" and "new religious movement" as they are applied here. Not all NRM's have any particular supernatural beliefs that would necessarily qualify them for inclusion here anymore than the more mainstream religion from which they sprung. Hasidism and Pentecostalism, for instance, have both been included by at least one expert in the field, James R. Lewis, as within the NRM field. I can see how Pentecostalism in some of its forms could have opposition such as that described here, Hasidism less so. Based on that, I think it might help if the lede described in a bit more detail the basis for the opposition this article describes. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The article needs more reworking. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that any self-respecting skeptic opposes core aspects of Hasidic beliefs just as much as they oppose Pentecostal beliefs. The issue is not about classification of groups, it is about the notability of the skeptical movements opposition to NRMs, or "cults". The only mention of these religious groups on any pages I could find associated with the movement was this unreferenced sentence at Committee for Skeptical Inquiry: "CSI conducts and publishes investigations into Bigfoot and UFO sightings, psychics, astrologers, alternative medicine, religious cults, and paranormal or pseudoscientific claims." Now I'm not opposed to including the skeptical movement here as long as it is notable and sourced to show it. That's all.PelleSmith (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that specific skeptics hace criticized specific cults, like James Randi criticizing the "Moonies". CSICOP doesn't have an official position on any issue, but it publishes articles that obviously oppose cults [1] (specially those that create and promote unscientific stuff while saying that it's backed by science). I don't think that they oppose "new religious movements" in general, just the stuff that some of them push. A source making that distinction would be a nice addition to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
More