Talk:CESNUR/Archive 1

CESNUR

David, I reverted your remark that CESNUR was funded by Scientology. I could not find any references for it and I strongly believe it to be incorrect. Andries 20:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To start you off, here is a Usenet post by Anton Hein (Apologetics Index) on the murkiness of the funding arrangements of CESNUR and of the academic study of NRMs in general. You are correct, in that it's not just Scientology paying them. But CESNUR are essentially paid public relations for the groups they write about. Compare Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and the tobacco industry. A reference supported by a study from CESNUR cannot reasonably be considered more than a press release with foot notes - David Gerard 00:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edits by Andries

Please explain the reasons for the deletion you made. Is it just because you don't like it? ≈ jossi ≈ 22:02, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi,

I hardly deleted anything. Andries 07:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. Where is the proof that they are leading universities? Free University is not leading. Not bad either. Andries 07:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. I wrote several times that the scholars affliated with CESNUR are not a unity; they often disagree with each other. An opinion of one scholar can not be taken as CESNUR's official opinion. Andries 07:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. CESNUR did not write apostate. They wrote ex-members who rationalize thier past. I do not understand why Zappaz changed that and he should explain his edits, not me. Andries 07:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't understand why you think that the University of Turin, the London School of Economics, the University of Friburg, and the University of Montreal, are not leading. ≈ jossi ≈ 19:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I do not know. The burden of proof is on the claimant. This is not an advertisement. I have not removed the word "leading" only from CESNUR but also from the Coimbra Group. Andries 21:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

???????????? Are we in a court of law, or editing an encyclopedia? What is this thing about the burdern of proof? ≈ jossi ≈ 00:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, Please provide references for the word "leading". Andries 18:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did: University of Turin, the London School of Economics, the University of Friburg, and the University of Montreal ≈ jossi ≈ 00:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please provide references for the assertion that all the affiliated universities are leading. Andries 07:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I will not. This is absolutely crazy. Forget it, Keep it, enjoy it, celebrate your "win". ??????. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:59, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you' rationalize your past, does not means that it is what CESNUR says. This is an article about CESNUR not about Andries. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:59, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

CESNUR website says,

"Information supplied by anti-cult activists claims to be eminently practical but in fact is largely theoretical and anedoctical, based as it is on secondary sources, from press clippings to accounts of families of members (not necessarily familiar with the movements) or of ex-members rationalizing their past experiences." from http://www.cesnur.org/about.htm

Please Jossi, if you do not have time to study the subject then at least do not hinder others who do. Andries 18:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK ≈ jossi ≈ 18:19, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

"CESNUR affiliated scholars"

Where is the evidence that certain people are "CESNUR affiliated scholars"? If they are, there should be some web page with a board or whatever. Or does the definition mean that these people have been at a CESNUR conference? If so, it means nothing. Introvigne told me that if I paid, even I could read a paper at a conference. --Tilman 12:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)s

The only affiliated Scholars seem to be Eileen Barker and Gordon Melton. The organizations started by Barker and Melton have many times teamed up with CESNUR. Unless citations can be shown to be "affiliated scholar" it is original work and should be deleted

The comment about the only requirement for reading a paper is paying a fee is partially correct. The research has to be an accepted by a executive committee, and Massimo told me that such a paper content has to be of academic quality. The person is not required to be a professional scholar. Once the paper is accepted the person must pay the conference fee for the paper to be locked-in for the conference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 02:53, 2 April 2008‎ (talk • contribs) John196920022001 (UTC)

Needs reference

Di Marzio, however, later somewhat changed her views, left the Catholic counter-cult organization Gruppo di Ricerca e di Informazione sulle Sette (GRIS) and worked quite regularly with CESNUR. She is listed among the contributors of the CESNUR online encyclopedia "Religions in Italy".[1]

The reference given supports the second sentence, but not the first. AndroidCat (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary references

The links to CESNUR's site as references to the CESNUR article are primary references, and should be replaced with third-party secondary refs. AndroidCat (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reiterated. (Oh and if any editor uses a certain topic as a bannation, I'll have your nards for display purposes.) AndroidCat (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

CESNUR funding

Massimo Introvigne (October 1998) states that "CESNUR's only institutional funding came from the government of the Region of Piedmont", however in 2003, Dick Anthony, Research Director of the Center for the Study of New Religions [CESNUR] at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley California states in his bio: "These research programs were funded by US government agencies (the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Drug Abuse, and the National Endowment for the Humanities) and by philanthropic foundations (the Ford, Rockefeller and San Francisco Foundations)."[2] I'm not sure how much weight to assign that, especially with the implicit and startling claim that there is an academic connection between CESNUR and the Graduate Theological Union. AndroidCat (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CESNUR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051219055614/http://assembly.coe.int:80/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc05/EDOC10470.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc05/EDOC10470.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Dead link is a reliable source? Juliano202 (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is dependent on whether it complies with WP:RS and not whether the original URL is still active. If we have a link to the original (eg the Wayback machine), which we do in the case of the source you tried to remove, that's fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

There is no independent source that describes the organization. Also A7 there are no secondary sources that describe the organization (not Notability) --Juliano202 (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You nominated it for deletion for WP:G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", which it clearly is not. As for A7, the claim that it is a group of religious scholars from universities in Europe and the Americas established in 1988 and with a number of clearly notable affiliated scholars, holds conferences around the world, has been the target of criticism from notable religious movements, and *does* have independent sources out there covering it... is way more than is needed to overcome the very low requirements of WP:A7. Also, before you nominate something for deletion, please read WP:BEFORE and follow its directions. It was very easy to find more independent sources describing the organization - I found two immediately and added citations. It is possible that there is not enough for notability, but that would have to be addressed at WP:AFD. You only registered today, and you have been disruptively trying to remove sources from this article (and from the article about its director, Massimo Introvigne), you have added tags to the article without explaining them on the talk page as required, and you are now trying to get it deleted. I ask again, as I asked on your talk page, what is your connection with or interest in the organization? (It also seems strange that you are unusually familiar with Wikipedia's policies for a newcomer on their first day - have you edited with any previous accounts?) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• I am an adult and before doing anything I study the rules. I also deal with cars and household appliances. Before doing anything, I'm studying the instructions. And this is normal. Therefore, I advise you not to try to manipulate the age of my account and the fact that I know the rules of Wikipedia. At least it looks strange.
• You yourself say that there may not be enough information to confirm the article. How to see this is obvious not only for me, but even for you. There are not enough authoritative sources in this article that describe the activities of this Organization. The entire text in the article is not confirmed by any independent and authoritative source. Authoritative sources point to a network of scientists, but not to the organization. This page is devoted to the organization. Therefore, there must be sources that point to the organization. These times there are none. For this I will put this Article to delete through discussion. I hope that you will not violate the rules on your part and remove this notation. I hope that you are not an entrusted administrator by Professor Introvigne. Don't be silly. Juliano202 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Firstly, I'm pleased to hear you are such a quick learner - but that still doesn't explain your interest in this article or how your only edits (immediately after creating your account) were to the article. I guess it might just be one of those happenstances?

  Secondly, I did not say anything is obvious nor do I see anything as obvious - I was merely suggesting that there "may" not be sufficient for notability (I really don't know either way). But there clearly *are* sources pointing to the organization, so it's no good continuing to insist that there are not - I even added two more myself, and already told you that. Also, my comments that sparked your "network of scientists" response was *only* referring to WP:A7, and the claims in the article are clearly sufficient to beat WP:A7 - A7 does not require *any sources at all*, just credible claims.

  Next, I am happy to confirm that I had never even heard of Massimo Introvigne or of CESNUR before today, when I saw your edits as I was patrolling edits by new users (as I have, actually, already told you before). So your hope is fulfilled - I am not associated with Massimo Introvigne in any way whatsoever.

  Finally, yes, WP:AFD is indeed the correct way (and the only correct way) for you to request deletion of this article (via discussion and consensus). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your answer, in that case, I will re-make an exact extract, I will re-send the article to WP: AFD. I hope the third time you will not delete my editing. Otherwise, your connection with the professor will look strange. And I repeat to you that on the page there is not a single reference to the authoritative sources in which it is about the organization. Please note that there is no mention on the Berkleycenter website that Cesnur is an organization. Literally it says: "Independent international network that engages in scholarly research and provides accurate information to the public on new religious movements" Juliano202 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please stop making accusations - if you keep doing it you will probably be blocked from editing, I reverted your latest attempt because you used the wrong process, that is all! And let's not discuss the sources here any further, let's save that for the WP:AFD discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. I'm not accusing you of anything, I just ask you to follow the rules of Wikipedia. If I made a mistake somewhere, please, I will be very grateful if you tell me in where is it Juliano202 (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes you are, it is "Otherwise, your connection with the professor will look strange". I have told you that I have no connection with the professor, so continuing to make these insinuations constitutes personal attack. See WP:NPA and do not make any further comments of that nature. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Listen, how many times do I have to tell you that you should use the WP:AFD process and NOT the WP:PROD process. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• I did not set out to offend you in some way. I just did not understand the reason for removing my editing. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Thank you for explaining my mistake. I apologize, I did not mean to offend you in any way. Now you have pointed out my mistake and I will correct it. - Juliano202 (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and as you keep insisting that there are no independent sources about CESNUR itself, I've just done a very quick Google books search and found the following...

• A Reader in New Religious Movements
• Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements - Page 101
• Cults: A Reference and Guide - Page 204
• Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements - Page 76

Those are just the first four links, and I haven't even looked at Google Scholar yet. If you start an AFD and insist there are no independent sources about CENSUR, you really are not going to have much success. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, here's the Google scholar results (about 1,840 results). (If you want English only you'll have to change your own settings - I get about 1,090 results when I do that.) Feel free to have a look through some of those. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I did as you advised me. Please check if I did the right thing. Maybe you still have some recommendations. - Juliano202 (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You did not complete the process properly (it's quite tricky), but someone else has fixed it up for you so it looks fine now. I will comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CESNUR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Bow to both parties for the civilized discussion and readiness to accept that one is wrong. Zezen (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

POV tag

Juliano202, editors are obliged to justify inclusion of a POV tag. I have removed the POV tag per Template:POV: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." JimRenge (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Tokyo Sarin Gas Paragraph

I removed this as the sourcing was essentially non-existent. The paragraph was supported by sourcing from "ApologeticsIndex.org", a self-published resource which describes itself as an "online Christian ministry." It was also supported by a broken Wayback Machine link. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Feoffer: - Although I'm glad to see that "ApologeticsIndex.org" was removed from this article, the fact nevertheless remains that the Aum investigation has nothing to do with CESNUR. It may involve CESNUR's co-founder but not CESNUR. Even the last source, which is used to support the statement that Some felt that the scholars' defense of Aum Shinrikyo led to a crisis of confidence in religious scholarship makes no mention of CESNUR, even though this sentence implies that it would given its presence in the CESNUR article. What's the rationale for including this paragraph in an article about the publication? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Reader discusses both Melton and Introvigne; added a source explicitly linking the two.Feoffer (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Feoffer:, can you explain how this relates to the CESNUR publication? From what I can tell, these individuals were involved in CESNUR, but CESNUR itself was not involved. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to have this paragraph in this article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The Aum investigation is cited by Reader and Tollenaere in their critiques of Introvigne and CESNUR. L'Humanité also makes mention. That said, clarifying text has been added to the section heading, specifically naming the involved members. Feoffer (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Feoffer:, this seems like a prime example of WP:SYNTH. The Reader citation does not even mention CESNUR. "A Rejoinder To Melton, Shupe, And Lewis" mentions CESNUR twice in passing, but not in the context of the subject of this paragraph. The only source that perhaps comes close to achieving a connection to CESNUR is the Dutch article, which is nearly unintelligible in Google translate. However, if you click the issue it appears in (No. 33), it is revealed to be a "Redactioneel" - which, in Dutch, means editorial or opinion article. At the end of the day, the only thing propping up this section is a rather vitriolic opinion piece from 1993. There is still no reliable connection between the prose and the sources. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hard for me to say if it's OR, since I'm the one who added in the first place. Pinging the folks up to speed on the recent CENSUR discussion so they can share their view. Feoffer (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should make this an RFC so that we can get some unbiased, uninvolved voices instead? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Done! Good idea. Responding to some of your points you wrote below:

• L'Humanite has lots of hits and even its own Wikipedia article -- if you didn't find any hits, perhaps you were searching English-Only?
• "Editorial commentary ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author" per WP:RS.
• The subject of this article is the group, not the journal. Feoffer (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that I can't find L'Humanite. I'm saying that I can't find the L'Humanite article that you've cited. When I search the name of the article, I get literally no hits aside from this Wikipedia article. Where did you find that article in the first place? As to your second point - this statement was not "attributed to that author or editor." Besides, what would that attribution look like? "According to this no-name opinion piece writer in 1993..."? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha, added a link to the L'Humanite article. It's not OR to mention AUM when discussing CESNUR -- that article does it. Feoffer (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, this appears to be an opinion piece. There are no reliable sources making this connection. The question is: did this controversy receive significant coverage in reliable sources? The answer is quite clearly no. Aside from two opinion articles, there does not seem to be anything else making this connection. Reviving an allegation made in a couple of blog-style posts in 1998-2001 into Wikipedia today is not appropriate. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Opinions and Editorials are reliable sources for their own views. Feoffer (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

RFC:Is Aum Investigation WP:OR/SYNTH?

MayHisShadow argues that this section is OR/SYNTH for reasons above. I argue it is not because:

• Melton is a founder of CESNUR, an ostensibly-scholarly organization studying New Religions.
• Lewis is a member of CESNUR where he studies New Religions
• Melton & Lewis's ostensibly-scholarly collaboration on the New Religion "Aum" is widely discussed
• Scholars like Reader & Tollenaere plus periodical L'Humanité have cited the Aum investigation in their criticism of CESNUR and its director-founder Introvigne. Feoffer (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

While the first three points are accurate, the problem is that there is nothing to tie this all together. Contrary to what you say above, the Reader source does not even mention CESNUR at all - not once. The only source I can see that actually does this is the source at Groene.nl, specifically a vitriolic opinion article from the 1993 editorial section. Not a good source by any means. The Skeptic Magazine source mentions CESNUR only twice in passing, and not in the context of connecting the "Aum" collaboration to CENSUR. As for L'Humanite - when I search for that article, literally the only Google hit is this very Wikipedia article. I can't see any reliable source that's synthesizing these points in the way that you're doing it. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 12:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC) For the benefit of readers who may not be aware - the "Aum" investigation was not published in CESNUR nor did it have anything to do with CESNUR. The only link is that some of the people involved in that investigation were also involved in CESNUR. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 12:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot I would like to say about this, but where to begin? This section is just one symptom of a deeper issue. It is impossible, or almost impossible, to fairly and accurately discuss CESNUR without also discussing the WP:FRINGE views of its most prominent members. The field has evolved, in significant part due to the Aum gas attack, but CESNUR has not. This journal is a walled-garden which mostly publishes the same handful of writers every issue. It's fairly silly to try and create a firewall to separate this small, tight-knit group from the journal they all edit together.

While apologeticsindex.org is not reliable, it cites other sources which can be evaluated on their own merits. This appears to be a reliable source:

• Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin (2001). "1. 'Oh Truant Muse' : Collaborationism and Research Integrity". In Zablocki, Benjamin; Robbins, Thomas (eds.). Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781487598440. Retrieved 19 September 2019.

This specific chapter doesn't mention CESNUR, but it does provide a lot of very useful background on precisely how this scandal effected the study of new religions/cults. Beit-Hallahmi is arguing that the problem of this "party line" of these defenders of Aum has not only "undermined scholarly credibility, but that it has undermined our main effort" to understand and explain these movements. Per Beit-Hallahmi, this was the culmination of Lewis and Gordon's "made-to-order PR efforts". The incident clearly had lasting, encyclopedic significance to the larger field of "new religions movements". So is the argument that this somehow didn't influence the journal? I get why this is a SYNTH concern, but that argument doesn't make any sense. If the article can include a lengthy, cherry-picked paragraph from a primary source from 1998(!) as the conclusion of a WP:CSECTION, I think at least some coverage of this historically significant blunder is justified. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This specific chapter doesn't mention CESNUR - That's the problem. The CESNUR article should reflect what reliable sources say about CESNUR. Including material that doesn't mention CESNUR at all because an editor has decided that there should be a connection is practically the definition of synthesis. Perhaps this material could be appropriate somewhere else, but not in the CESNUR article. If the article can include a lengthy, cherry-picked paragraph from a primary source from 1998(!) as the conclusion of a WP:CSECTION, I think at least some coverage of this historically significant blunder is justified. - Perhaps that should be removed as well. Just because there's inappropriate material elsewhere in the article doesn't open the door to endless policy-violating material. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the SYNTH concerns just evaporated, as one of the involved scholars wrote a paper which was actually included in CESNUR's annual conference. (Per Introvigne, Massimo (1998). Blacklisting or Greenlisting? A European Perspective on the New Cult Wars, Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 1 (3), 16-23<.) Feoffer (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Feoffer: - Sigh. No. It didn't just evaporate. Please keep in mind the portion of this paragraph which is WP:SYNTH. Clearly, some individuals associated with CESNUR made public commentary on the Aum terrorist attacks. Associating the statements of those individuals with CESNUR itself is the synthesis. Most of the sources you have provided do not even mention CESNUR. The only two sources that actually make this connection are opinion pieces of dubious reliability. Just because something was written about Aum in CESNUR does not mean that you, as the editor, can use this piece as a way to bridge the gap between your conclusion and all those sources that do not mention CESNUR at all. It's a perfect illustration of what not to do under WP:SYNTH. We aren't trying to build connections with strings and push-pins, we're here to report on what reliable sources have said. And frankly, two opinion columns of dubious quality from over 20 years ago that seem to have no WP:LASTING impact really does not belong in an article - and if it did, it would be perhaps one sentence with in-text attribution. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Move it to the Melton/Lewis articles, I see no evidence that CESNUR was involved. L´Humanitee is a communist newspaper and a poor source to support this kind of synthesis. Additionally, there is no consensus to add this. Please see WP:BRD. JimRenge (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I would suggest a much shorter rewrite, making this a part of "Criticism". Jzsj (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• I see that the paragraph has been paired down to one sentence referencing the editorial in L'Humanite. I think that's definitely more justifiable from the WP:SYNTH perspective (this source actually does critique CESNUR), but it seems like a problem from the WP:DUE side of the house. What makes this editorial particularly notable? It seems to have no WP:LASTING impact on anyone or anything. It seems to be nothing more than a vitriolic opinion piece that would have been completely lost to history had it not been dredged up for the specific purpose of linking Aum to CENSUR on this article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The criticism ("all the sects know they can count on CESNUR") is notable and widespread, not limited to any one or two sources. The initial piece in Trouw was probably the most influential, but it's sprawling. L'Humanite's verbiage is far more succinct. Incidentally, the L'Humanite source wasn't "dredged up", I found it on French Wikipedia's article on CESNUR where it's apparently been cited for the past 12 years. Feoffer (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Feoffer, what's your basis for saying that "all the sects know they can count on CESNUR" is notable and widespread? When I search for the term, I get only three results - which are this Wikipedia page, and two scraper pages that mirror this Wikipedia page. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The criticism of CENSUR being too close to the groups it studies is found in Hebdo, L'Humanité, Kent, Groene Amsterdammer, and Reader. Feoffer (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Feoffer - The question is why this opinion piece, which was published over 20 years ago and has had no WP:LASTING effect, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Opinion pieces can sometimes be included if they have some greater significance, but this appears to have none. Simply echoing the sentiments found elsewhere does not render it influential in any way. Nor is your statement really correct - for example, the Reader citation does not even mention CESNUR. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:Lasting is a standard applied to notability/non-notability of articles themselves (specifically articles about events). It's not the standard for WP:RSes in the text of articles about notable organizations. Feoffer (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Feoffer - You're not really addressing the point. The question is, why is this opinion piece from 20 years ago considered a reliable enough source for this article? Why does it have weight? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Of the reliable sources independent of the subject, most make reference to the potential objectivity/bias/entanglements issue. Garde, a notable French journalist, is one of many such sources to make this criticism, in this case through media outlet L'Humanité. Though Lasting isn't a standard, off the top of my head, Garde's piece was still being cited at least 12 years after its publication in academic work [3] (and course it's regularly cited by "anti-cult" groups and other languages' Wikipedias). Feoffer (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that Jim Lewis has never been a member of CESNUR, although, like some other 400 scholars of very different persuasions, he has presented papers in CESNUR conferences. Aidayoung (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If you are on a first name basis with "Jim" Lewis, and know that he has never been a member of this group, perhaps you should review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Grayfell (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Those who allege that Jim Lewis (who is normally introduced as such in conferences on new religions) is a “member” of CESNUR should prove it. It is not I who should prove a negative. Those who are, in different ways, “members” of CESNUR are listed in CESNUR’s Web sites. Lewis (as “Jim” or “James”) as far as I know has never appeared in such lists Aidayoung (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe I edited to a fair solution of this controversy. There is no evidence that Lewis was ever "CESNUR-affiliated" but there is ample evidence that Melton was, and he was involved in the AUM fiasco. However, the trip was not organized by CESNUR. The text by Introvigne quoted is not a text on the AUM trip, but on anti-cult controversies, with only one paragraph devoted to the AUM-Melton-Lewis incident. Since the AUM fiasco is relevant for Melton's career, and Melton is described as one of CESNUR's directors, I have not touched the description of the AUM incident but moved it to the section where Melton is discussed.Aidayoung (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)