Talk:List of new religious movements

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.

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)

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)

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:

• http://solitarytrees.net/racism/deny.htm
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Scientology

Groupsisxty (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

• 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.

Groupsisxty (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Justanother (talk · contribs) 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 [Scientology]" and it continues to make this claim today[1]; 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 SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs). 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)

• 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.

"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)

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) --SHEFFIELDSTEEL^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)

• 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)

The above comment was actually added by myself. Groupsisxty (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading into the sources a bit too much

[2] - 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 Justallofthem (talk · contribs) 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'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:45, 1 September 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)

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)

Pappula

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

Proposal for Consensus

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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^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)

Groupsisxty (talk · contribs) 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 the reasons I have outlined below in opposing the change to a purely alphabetical list; remving categorisations because one group's inclusion has been disputed is a knee-jerk reaction and counterproductive. I would be willing to accept a change from 'supremacist' to 'extremist' (even though IMH 'extremist' does not sound as bad and a lot of those groups are blatantly supremacist and should be labelled as such), provided that Scientology is included, because if it is not then there was no point in changing the classification in the first place. bear in mind this is not just about the changing of a categorisation of one section, this is a continuation of a private agenda started by justallofthem to make sure that his "religion" does not fall under any categories that paint it in a bad light. We have already established that he is too pro-Scientology (possibly employed by the OSA to do exactly this kind of thing) to be objective. A lot have people have worked very hard to provide sources to justify Scientology's inclusion in this category whatever you want to label it, the sources speak for themselves. They are anti-gay, anti-disabled persons, and racist. Anyone can see that if they resarch properly. If Scientology is not included, or worse if this article is changed to a mere alphabetical list, you are undoing their hard work and saying that what those sources do tell us doesn't matter.ShadowVsScientology (talk) 18:43, 10 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)

Recap

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

I second, 4-3 in favour, move to article before the decision is influcenced by canavssing for more 'oppose' votes. ShadowVsScientology (talk) 03:57, 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)

Go for it! And The Jade Knight is right, it isn't really consensus per se, but there are more Support votes. Anyhoo, no-one can argue the point about it being better cited. ShadowVsScientology (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit protect request

{{tl:editprotected}} 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)

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 monthsyears 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)

• Ok, three benchmark date are proposed by various heads in the field:

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,

"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)

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)

To the best of my knowledge, the format had never caused any problems until Scientology was (correctly) added to the appropriate categories, with supporting sources, and justallofthem took umbrage to that. Just setting the record straight for the newcomers. Read the edit history and discussion pages. ShadowVsScientology (talk) 04:34, 12 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)

• Oppose because deleting the entire section is like turning a blind eye to Supremacist groups and saying they don't exist. Furthermore, inability to decide whether or not one group (in this case, Scientology) should be included in the category should not mean that the entire section gets removed, it is an un-neccessary reaction. Wikipedia is a factual source of knowledge, Supremacist groups exist, therefore they should be listed as such. FURTHERMORE I object to this proposal being made by justallofthem, given his involvement in the Scientology debate, I suggest he has proposed this not for the good of the article but to further his own agenda. He originally argued aginst Scientology's inclusion as both 'UFO-based' and 'supremacist'; he backed down from the former when too many undisputable sources were cited, he has stuck to his guns ever since on 'supremacist'. Lots of sources were found to support 'Supremacist', however they did not meet Wikipedia's requirements and we have accepted that. HOWEVER, changing the article from categorised to alphabetical list is therefore the only way to ensure that Scientology is not listed as 'UFO-based' (undoing the hard work of every one who found irrefutable sources) and GUARANTEE that it is never listed as 'supremacist'. The fact is, most of the groups that were labelled 'supremacist' probably accept that they are supremacist (or viwed as such by others) and really don't give a damn, hence there has never (again, to the best of my knowledge) been any dispute over this article by their followers. However Scientology is not keen on any negative labelling, as 'pulling the wool over people's eyes' so to speak is of primary concern to that movement.

All I ask is that before any of you vote on this matter, you familiarise yourselves with justallofthem's involvment, and make sure you are voting for the right reasons. Ask yourself, 'Is this proposal genuinely made for the good of the article, or to further a personal agenda'? If you have actually paid attention to what has gone before, you will know the answer. I have actually been in contact with admins about this user, and I was under the impression that they were going to take action, hopefully before something like this happened.....

I would also like to urge users not to judge based on my user name, it is identical to that of an account I have off-Wiki, I created the username to be identifiable here as I needed to comment on a Wikinews article which quotes me (under the aforementioned off-Wiki account). I am solely interested in the integrity of this article, changing its content format would be counter-productive.

ShadowVsScientology (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that this user has been banned as an apparent sockpuppet.

• 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)

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)

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)