Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Writing NRM articles

Founder-movement question

So far, everything looks good. One thing that might be beneficial to address, if this particular subject is one which can be addressed in this way, is when and how to "spin out" a separate article on the movement as opposed to its founder, and when not to. I think it was in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions where I saw, much to my surprise, that a movement included with its own entry was not known to have any members other than the one individual who was distributing its literature. Clearly, in that case, I doubt if an article on the movement would make sense, but does anyone think we might be able to come up with some sort of idea how much verbal content and/or seperate mention, even if that mention may nt be that significant, the movement should have for spinout? By separate mention, I'm thinking of such instances as when a given group is mentioned by its name, but without its founder's name, in reliable sources as an example of whatever it is being used as an example of. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Just to jog my brain into action, could you give some real-life examples where this quandary occurs? I know Adidam (movement) redirects to Adi Da, for example, but otherwise I cannot think of many movements off-hand that redirect to their founders. I propose we look at some examples where the current arrangement works well, or where it doesn't, and work out some criteria on that basis.

I'll add the MOS to the guidelines section of WP:NRM. I'll mark it as a draft for now. --JN 466 20:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few that come to mind: Semjase Silver Star Center, Adventures in Enlightenment, A Foundation, and some similar redirect types: Agni Yoga Society, Amana Church Society, American Muslims, Ansaaru Allah Community, and I think quite a few others I haven't yet added to the List of new religious movements. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Nice selection. To me the point where the movement should have its own article comes when it develops social structures and elaborate (devotional etc.) behaviours which sources have described, as these can no longer be covered properly within the scope of the founder's biography. Nuwaubianism clearly qualifies, for example. --JN 466 01:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Okay? --JN 466 23:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Informational v. Sensational sentences on RS section

In my research of the of The NRM Twelve Tribes i have often found that NYT, Boston Globe, and New York Post often Shoot For Sensational stories rather than informational by smaller papers such as Rutland Herald, Colorado Spring Gazette, Savannah Morning News, North County Times all have much more useful articles. though there are many exceptions by these larger papers at doing balanced pieces rather than screaming EVIL CULT EVIL CULT. I am putting this in the manual; i welcome edit to make it flow better within the paragraph or rephrasing it entirely. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponbb7, I don't think this would fly. You may have a point that media coverage of NRMs is often sensationalistic -- I recall the UN saying something to that effect in the past, and scholars in this field have at various times said so, just as scholars of medicine find fault with newspaper articles on medical matters -- but telling editors point-blank that the New York Times is not a reliable source when it comes to New Religious Movement is not a credible proposition. --JN 466 19:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oops i didn't mean to make it sound like that NYT was not a reliable source i meant to phrase it as a possible example of normal mainstream sources being often less reliable on this type of subject and use the NYT as an example. i never meant to phase it as to never use the NYT, i merely meant to say that just because the NYT is a source does not mean that it is as reliable as when it might be when covering a politics. But you agree a statement like this is appropriate? Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I kept the spelling correction. (Note that "analyse" is the correct spelling of the word outside the US.) The problem is that I can think of at least one major scholar (Beit-Hallahmi) who has said that journalistic accounts have often proved more correct than scholarly accounts. We are currently saying that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available", which is a standard wording. We are also hinting that editors should make use of scholarly summaries of events that happened a long time ago, where available, rather than write original summaries and analyses of past media reports. --JN 466 20:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i see Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how about something along the lines "Editors should be weary of yellow journalism, as even normally reliable sources have been found to publish such articles when writing about NRM." Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this MOS is not to write new or special guidelines for NRMs. Rather, it presents existing content policies and guidelines, and explains that these apply in the NRM field, as they do in any other. It is for this reason that most of the text in the MOS simply repeats what existing policies and guidelines say. Now, if you can find something in the existing policies and guidelines that addresses yellow journalism, then I am happy to include that here. If there is nothing in the existing policies and guidelines to that effect, then we have no community-consensus basis for including such a stricture here. --JN 466 20:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh well that makes this whole thing a horse of a different color, thanx for not biting the Noob.Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponbb7 is right, sometimes generally reliable journalism is not reliable for a certain NRM. I see no solution however. Sensational scandals are not necessarily a sign of bad journalism or unreliable sources, because sometimes events in NRMs are scandalous and sensational. Andries (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed template removed

Given John Carter's endorsement above, and the absence of any negative feedback, I have taken the Proposed template out. --JN 466 14:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language, Jargon, etc.

I'm curious if existing policies shed some light on the notion of jargon--language particular to a given field or group--and how Wikipedia is supposed to employ it. Should jargon be "quoted", or italicized? With technical math articles, the reader is expected to have some knowledge of the field, but there is no such expectation of training when it comes to religions or non-traditional philosophies, I assume. The issue is significant for nrm/cult groups, because they often use words that have very loaded meanings; sometimes those phrases are wholly neologisms, but very often they are appropriations of common language that are melded or reconstituted to have a contextual connotation which far outweighs that intended or interpreted by everyday, non-affiliated speakers. A few examples are "clear"[2][3] (scientology); "accurate", "fair", "honest"[4] (aesthetic realism), etc. I'm not suggesting that all of these phrases are necessarily subversive, just that there is a language divide between insiders and outsiders. Where does the Wikipedian stand relative to that dichotomy? 71.224.206.164 (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found some policies that variously address the issue of language; maybe they would be helpful... (all links are to internal WP pages)

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at words to avoid.[5]

Pseudoscientific theories are claimed to be science, however, they lack scientific status by use of an inappropriate methodology or lack of objective evidence. Conversely, scientific consensus is by its very nature the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the main views. Any mention should be proportionate, representing the scientific view as the majority view and the pseudoscientific view as the minority view, including explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all part of describing differing views fairly. Similar arguments apply to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as Holocaust denial, or claims the Apollo moon landing was faked.[6]

Jargon (that is, words and phrases which are not widely understood outside a specific group, or are understood differently by different people) should be either avoided or explained where possible; see Wikipedia:Explain jargon. Similarly, words that have different meanings in different variants of English should be avoided where possible, and briefly explained where their use is essential.[7]

Like slang, jargon develops as a kind of shorthand among members of a group. Some articles may never become accessible to a wide readership, but most articles using academic or professional terms should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typical academic paper or textbook. On the other hand, an article that defines every term, or every symbol, may be so cluttered that no one can read it...It is often helpful to wikilink terms not obvious to most readers; sometimes links to Wiktionary may serve the reader as well as links to Wikipedia articles. Pay particular attention to terms for which the technical meaning is different from the commonly understood meaning.[8]

Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral...There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term.[9]

State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader.[10]

When writing technical (scientific, medical, legal, etc.) articles, it is usually the case that a number of technical terms or terms of art and jargon specific to the subject matter will be presented. These should be defined or at least alternative language provided, so that a non-technical reader can both learn the terms and understand how they are used by scientists.[11]

71.224.206.164 (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: New section on language for the NRM Manual of Style

PROPOSAL TEXT:

New Religious Movement (NRM) groups often use words and phrases that have unfamiliar, non-traditional, or loaded meanings. Sometimes the words are wholly neologisms, but very often they appropriate common language which is reconstituted to have a definition and connotation that extends beyond what non-affiliated speakers would expect or interpret. Wikipedia policies on language are clear that they should be one thing above all: transparent. The reader should know when he or she is encountering a new term or a familiar term being used in a new context.

Therefore, NRM jargon, the words and phrases which are not widely understood outside a specific group, or are understood differently by different people, should be either avoided or explained where possible. Similarly, words that have different meanings inside and outside of an NRM should be avoided where possible, and briefly explained where their use is essential. Like jargon, slang develops as a kind of shorthand among members of a group. Some articles may never become accessible to a wide readership, but most articles using NRM terms should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typical NRM writing or source.

Pay particular attention to terms for which the movement's meaning is different from the commonly understood meaning. Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: either those of insiders (students/believers/practitioners) or outsiders (critics/exit-counselors/skeptics) labeling and describing the movement as each sees it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral; and vice/versa. There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term. State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. In that case, that an article becomes weighed down with definitions, consider include a glossary of language unique to the movement as a sub-section or a linked page.

While maintaining transparency, NRM articles should also be precise, careful to use NRM language only in its formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or confusing the reader. As for controversial terms, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view. The consensus among reliable sources is by its very nature the majority viewpoint of writers towards a topic. Thus, when talking about controversial topics, we should not describe opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While minority viewpoints may in some cases be significant to an article, they should not obfuscate the description of the main views. Any mention should be proportionate, representing the minority and minority views respectively as such and including explanations of how the majority has received the minority's theories. That approach does not, of course, prohibit a full treatment of minority views, providing they are appropriately sized and sourced. This is all part of describing differing views fairly.

(heavily paraphrased from existing policy, references: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]) 71.224.204.226 (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Please bear with me; I'll get round to it. --JN 466 13:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all NRMs are Cults

Labeling all NRMs as cults in the first sentence is misleading and incorrect. While some or even many NRMs may be cults, the features of a cult in a psychological research include such things as "charismatic leader," "isolating of its members," etc. Even the Encyclopaedia Brittanica notes that "cult" is often used as a pejorative to refer to new religious groups. Using a "pejorative" word is by definition biased or slanted.

A more neutral sentence would either delete the clause "often called cults" or read something like: Wikipedia's articles on new religious movements (NRMs), including cults, have frequently proved contentious.

Windy Wanderer (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objections to this point, I have deleted the clause. If some disagree, let us talk here. Windy Wanderer (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with this. There are some NRMs which are not commonly known as cults. --JN 466 13:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good work on this by the way. Windy Wanderer (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for addition of WP:LABEL

If not this text something similiar as it seems to be a recurring issue For Further information see WP:LABEL It is unencyclopedic to label a group a "cult" or a individual a "Cult leader" and present it as fact, as it is an opinion. It is acceptable to attribute the the statement to an organization that or notable individual who has called the group or individual who has called the group a cult. Alterations to this text seem acceptable to me as long as the point is conveyed Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused as to what you're proposing? Do you mean to add that to this page or to the WP:Label page? If here, where would you add it? Windy Wanderer (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no something along these lines in the manual, Labeling a group a cult seems to be recurring problem in these articles in the project's scope

Preference for scholarly works

Scholarly works should be given preference over news outlets, which are often less reliable, and may sometimes be sensationalistic. As the saying goes, news is the first rough draft of history.

This new text is true of all topics. I had proposed to simply use the similar language from WP:V, which is more tolerant of mainstream media sources.

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test'

But that was rejected. I don't think that we should set special sourcing rules for this topic. Will Beback talk 05:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of fact, MoS guidelines for specific subject areas (like this MoS guideline) are exactly special rules for those subject areas. Why do you think special rules do not apply here? What do you have against trying to tighten the MoS in a subject area where the media is often sensationalistic?Griswaldo (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have special rules for politics either, that I'm aware of. I think that Wikipedia's policies are sufficient for this topic too. Will Beback talk 12:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any topic about which the media is not sensationalistic? Will Beback talk 12:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was careful in drafting the MOS to reflect the wording of project-wide guidelines and policies, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion/New_religious_movements_work_group/Manual_of_Style#Reliable_sources follows and links to WP:IRS. Specifying guidelines for a particular topic area that deviate from the generic standards is not unheard-of, cf. Wikipedia:Medrs#Popular_press, but would require in-depth discussion and broad consensus. --J N 466 12:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is the overly abusable phrase "given preference". I have no problem with "giving preference" to serious scholarly works in the sense of thinking about them as the best source when writing an article. Nor with occasionally identifying the source of a scholarly or less-scholarly report in the text so that people know what level of quality they're dealing with. But I think that certain people would take that to mean that they delete every news article in sight and threaten administrative action against the people who posted them. I think Will Beback's version is good. Wnt (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, the words "give(n) preference" do not occur in the Manual of Style, and never did, until Jehochman's edit, which Will reverted. The current, and long-standing, wording is closely modelled on WP:IRS. Will's edit essentially inserted the same wording twice. For reference, the relevant part of the MOS is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion/New_religious_movements_work_group/Manual_of_Style#Reliable_sources. It states,

In the NRM field, as in any other field, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about new religious movements, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. For example, recent events may not have been subjected to published scholarly analysis yet, whereas events that occurred several decades ago may have been analyzed by multiple scholars. Try to cite scholarly consensus when available. Where sources disagree, material should be attributed in-text.

Does this need improving? --J N 466 15:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound so bad. Does this mean you want to keep the status quo? Wnt (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think works by religious scholars that focus on the biographies of religious founders/movement founders are rare. Andries (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs

I've added a section on BLPs, per Jehochman's comments on his talk page. It's based on the wording of Wikipedia:Blp#Criticism_and_praise. --J N 466 12:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest and advocacy

While both critics and adherents of a movement may be drawn to an article on that movement, both should realise that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy in favour of or in opposition to a movement. Editors should not attempt to turn the Wikipedia article on a new religious movement into a glowing tribute, or a cutting-edge critique, but attempt to create a neutral, balanced and conservative summary of the existing literature on the movement. The same applies to articles on groups and individuals opposing new religious movements.

Editors working in this field who have strong religious allegiances, or firmly-held views on the value of new and established religious movements, are encouraged to disclose their allegiances or views on their user page. This prevents speculation and enables an open and collegial working relationship even between editors with diametrically opposite views.

This text was apparently written by Jayen466 when he created the page, and it looks like it's never been discussed. There's now a dispute over the underlined admonition. One editors has proposed changing "neutral, balanced and conservative " to "accurate" to avoid confusion.[19] On review, I suggest that the entire sentence is unnecessary and could be deleted outright, perhaps replaced with an admonition to follow WP:NPOV. Will Beback talk 22:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that sentence in any way conflict with policies or guidelines (like say NPOV)? Not that I can tell. In that case ask yourself the obvious question here. Do these entries have a history of problems with 1) editors trying to write glowing tributes and POV pushing in that direction and 2) editors trying to write scathing critiques and POV pushing in that direction? If, as I suspect, the answer is yes then keeping this sentence is a no-brainer. NPOV is already a policy Will, and everyone should always try to follow it. MoS pages for specific topics should be tackling issues that are relevant to those topics in more detail or with more emphasis. That's what this sentence is doing.Griswaldo (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I'm not saying the sentence is written perfectly or that small changes might not improve it, but removal seems almost irrational to me unless one doesn't agree with having MoS pages like this at all.Griswaldo (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Griswaldo. Both extremes have been longstanding problems. --J N 466 03:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does the word "conservative" mean here? It is ambiguous and could have political connotations. How is "balanced" different from "neutral"? I felt that replacing all three adjectives with the one word "accurate" would be shorter, preserve the intended meaning, and avoid confusion. No big deal though if people want something else. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a manual of style. I think much of the material in this page goes way beyond stylistic guidelines. Wikipedia has plenty of perfectly good policies covering general content issues. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. Unless someone can show good cause I'm inclined to remove all the non-style sections. Perhaps Jayen could create an essay to hold his views instead. Will Beback talk 21:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everything in NRMMOS is based on generic policies and guidelines, highlighting those points in those policies and guidelines that are most important to enabling editors to collaborate effectively, even if they hold very different opinions, and do quality work in this topic area. --J N 466 22:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the job of an MOS. I've started a thread on that specific issue below. It sounds like what you're wanting is a "tips and suggestions" page, or maybe an FAQ. Will Beback talk 07:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thinking behind the word "conservative" was to counteract the common tendency to focus on the most inflammatory and the most flattering material, usually found in less authoritative sources, and instead make sure that most of the work goes into adequately reflecting the most authoritative sources. Cf. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#NPOV_and_sources, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Reliable_sources. It's about sourcing -- make sure the standard works in the field are reflected, cite the rock-solid sources, rather than those that sail close to the wind. So the meaning intended is much the same as in the BLP policy guidance, "BLPs must be written conservatively". If that can be said in a better way here, I am open to ideas. Cheers, --J N 466 22:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the word "accurate" is that both followers and critics usually insist that their polarised sources are the only ones that are accurate. If you look at the voluminous Sai Baba talk pages for instance, you'll find many examples. You'll remember the guy who said that the BBC was an unreliable source. The same claims come from the other side, too, in this topic area, e.g. when arguments are made that leading scholars are unreliable. --J N 466 22:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an article should be conservative; it should faithfully reflect the existing range of sources. Wnt (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the word we are looking for is "careful", as in "carefully sourced" or "careful" not to include any dubious information. Jehochman ^Talk 16:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. --J N 466 16:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of style

I've moved this to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/New religious movements to be consistent with other specialized manuals of style. I next intend to strip out the material which is not related to style. Will Beback talk 07:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably discuss first. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the thread. What say you? Will Beback talk 11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please propose what you would like to strip out. --J N 466 11:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your page. Which parts do you think are directly related to "style"? Will Beback talk 11:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your proposal. Which parts do you think do not belong? --J N 466 11:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that's unrelated to "style". Do we agree on that in principle? Will Beback talk 11:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. Which parts do you feel do not belong? --J N 466 11:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my next project. I haven't looked yet. Do you agree with the principle that a "manual of style" should be focused on issues of style? Will Beback talk 11:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please come back to us once you have looked, and identify the parts that you feel don't belong. We can then discuss those. --J N 466 11:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we all agree that this is a manual of style, and that it should follow the standards and norms of other "Manuals of Style". Will Beback talk 11:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, this page is not an MOS at all. It's a project guideline, which covers a different and broader field. I'll move it to that designation. That's simpler than trying to turn this into an MOS. Will Beback talk 08:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest and emotional involvement

I think the term conflict of interest is not so relevant here. What matters more is the degree of emotional involvement. An editor may have no conflict of interest but may be too emotionally involved. Andries (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly religious encyclopedias

I have read in the past some entries about NRMs in scholarly religious encyclopedias and I have to say that these entries are riddled with errors. Andries (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jzg, please explain major deletion

Jzg please explain this deletion without ad hominem reasoning [20] Thanks Andries (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD. We're on the "D" part now. Saying that certain sources may be "very reticent or very explicitly in a separate section and then their sources can be used with some caution" or saying "there is no consensus" for using certain sources aren't guidelines, they're opinions, and not very clear ones at that. Plus, I don't see any evidence that your additions were "co-authored". Have I missed something? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only said that I co-authored this guideline together with Jayen, in the sense that there were only two main contributors. Andries (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that explains it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest about hardline skeptical sources and theological sources for new religious movements? Andries (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what a "hardline" source is or how one would determine that classification. I suggest you leave your opinions out for the moment, or get broad consensus for including them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to get broad consensus if nobody seems interested. Andries (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~The term "hardline" was never in this manuel. Andries (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

I did a lot of reading on various new religious movements from various types of sources and this manual and this discussion should be done with other people who have done so. Otherwise this disussion will be senseles. Andries (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still need a broader consensus. Maybe you could attract opinions at Wikiproject Religion or the New religious movements work group‬ there. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gutted the vast majority of this MOS and saved as much as I could, short of blanking.

I've gutted the vast majority of this MOS and saved as much as I could, short of blanking.[21] The reason is that the vast majority of this Manual of Style had absolutely nothing to do with matters of style (i.e. language, capitalization, punctuation, layout, formatting, etc.). While policies and guidelines such as reliable sources, biographies of living persons, and civility, etc. are important, they are not style issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your gutting of it as it has been incredibly useful in dealing with difficult issues relating to NRM articles. I will be reverting your gutting of the article and bringing it to the attention of the NRM work group. Taxee (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with A Quest For Knowledge. Spurious advice and opinions and repetition of policy aren't a Manual of Style. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Anime-_and_manga-related_articles and others. It's just a collection of policy/guideline items pertaining to this topic area, has been stable for years, and people working in this field have found it useful. What's the problem? Andreas JN 466 01:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that gutting a guideline that is several years old and was created with discussion and consensus is a correct procedure. I'm glad it's been restored so proposed changes can be evaluated and discussed as a group.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you're calling a "Manual of Style" is a group essay that consists of a plea for civility, advice on treating people as "unique individuals", a summary of old disputes, musings on basic editorial policies and guidelines like WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:LINKVIO, WP:DUE, WP:BLP, WP:COATRACK and WP:COI, and another more extended plea for civility. The only valid style related content is a short section on "Article content structure". This content would be more honestly presented as an FAQ, and the rest perhaps as an ESSAY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Useful material should not be gutted. Useful historical information on this topic should be kept together and saved for a nice reference. I think we just need a new name or actually it is better to just leave it as is. Why create a new problem? Consensus is best - if it has to be changed at all JEMead (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/New religious movements → Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Writing NRM articles – This is not an MoS page, nor a guideline, nor even a style advice page, it's a wikiproject taskforce's content advice essay, originally at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Manual of Style. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In more detail

Despite the above disputes' year-old and older observations of the problems with this wikiproject advice page, essentially nothing has been done to improve it. It remains the WP:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements workgroup's essay, almost entirely on topical compliance with the WP:CORE content guidelines, plus a default layout suggestion (which is really more about what material should be present, a content not style matter), and a civility note.

It was very recently tagged with {{Guideline}}, despite no WP:PROPOSAL process [22]. It was moved from the wikiproject in 2011 to be a sub-page of the WP:Manual of Style (without any out-of-process elevation to guideline status at that time), despite no discussion at WT:MOS to adopt it as such. But there's a long-standing consensus that pages should not be labeled part of the MoS without a formal proposal, or at least long history of acceptance and a discussion to "ratify" as part of MoS, usually after significant copyediting to fold it into MoS's style of presentation, to weed out any biases, to remove (and if appropriate, relocate) non-style material, and to ensure it has no conflicts or unnecessary redundancies with extant MoS guidance. None of that has happened, and 4+ years is more than enough time for it to have been undertaken. This should have been moved back the minute the move was disputed in 2011.

As noted at #Manual of Style above, this rename was unilateral, predicated upon the assumption that wikiproject pages of this sort are normally renamed this way (they are not). The mover declared an intention to self-revert the move shortly after making it, but appears to have forgotten. The intent behind the move was declared to be to immediately pare it down to an actual style guide, but the mover did not do that either. Other editors, both in 2014, did try to do this cleanup, in whole or in part, but got reverted, as noted in the thread immediately above and at #Jzg, please explain major deletion. This page appears to largely represent the input of only two "co-authors", and there was an unhelpful level of cagey obstructionism on the part of one of them to the very idea that this page should focus on style. The original move was actually objected to a few hours after it happened: "Should probably discuss first." The entire affair has a feel of uncorrected sandboxing to it, and this page is so obscure that the last WP:BRD revert of an attempt to actually make it a style page didn't even result in any discussion. This page appears to represent a very narrow WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, much of which is long-term disputed in the discussions above, and is neither a part of MoS nor a WP:GUIDELINE.

(While the original page name was WP:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Manual of Style, this name would be inappropriate to move it back to. While a few other wikiprojects have named their essays things like "WikiProject Foo/Manual of Style" this is bad idea, confusing editors as to the nature and community acceptance of their advice-page essays, and I'll be proposing a multi-page WP:RM of them to more appropriate names after finding all of them.)

Pinging past commenters on this issue: JEMead, LuckyLouie, Keithbob, A Quest For Knowledge, JzG, Weaponbb7, Will Beback, TimidGuy, Andries, Jayen466.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well, it's not a MOS, we could just remove MOS from the title, and make it an essay in WP-space such as WP:Writing articles on new religious movements -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Topical essays of that sort that originate in topical wikiprojects generally remain within them; that's why I proposed moving it back to where it came from, just with a more appropriate page title than the original "Manual of Style". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move per nom; the page says at the top that it's about sourcing (not style), and goes on to discuss sourcing, and points (of content) that articles should cover. It's not a manual of style. -sche (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.