Talk:Néo-Phare

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TheNuggeteer talk 23:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that there was a doomsday cult named after Neo from The Matrix?

• Source: https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/2002/09/04/dans-un-pavillon-nantais-six-membres-de-la-secte-neo-phare-attendent-l-apocalypse-pour-le-24-octobre_4254378_1819218.html

• Reviewed:

Created by PARAKANYAA (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC).

• A new, well-written article, both informative and horrifying. It is long enough, sourced, neutral, no copyvio. The hook is both interesting and sourced in the text; the source is paywalled, so I accept it in good faith. No QPQ neccessary. Only issue is the linked "Neo (The Matrix)" article, as it has multiple issues; thus I have removed the link from the hook. Otherwise, passed. Good work! Applodion (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Néo-Phare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 17:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 00:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment just a warning I am having a very bad time in my real life right now so my responses to address issues in this article maybe be slower than typical for me. Will still attempt to address in a timely manner. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional note: Someone added an authorlink to Loren Coleman: we do not have an article on the author Loren Coleman, and it is not the cryptozoologist. Loren Coleman as cited in this article is, iirc, a researcher into suicide. I have removed this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Was apparently the same guy! Cryptozoologist and suicide researcher. Well that is unique. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Take as much time as you need. Life comes first. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: I'm going on vacation tomorrow, and on top of that, I'm sick, so I'm trying to sleep whatever this is off tonight before I leave. I would like to continue the review, but it will be slow going and there might be some delay. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts I don't mind! No rush. I have been slow in responding myself, apologies for that. I will attempt to address your remaining issues. PARAKANYAA(talk) 22:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I am free now, so I will begin work addressing your concerns again. Apologies for the wait. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I am still on vacation and won't really be able to fully dedicate attention to this until Friday. While you're working on addressing comments, a lot of my copy edits have been around sentence structure/concision, so it would be helfpul if you go throught it again with that in mind. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I addressed or attempted to address the points you brought up and will probably do another read through for sentence structure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A couple of more comments. My copy edit is done but it would be good for you to go through and make sure my reorganizations didn't mess up anything. After that, I can do a spot check. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

All your copyedits look good to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Spot check to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I will be leaving comments and making copy edits as I review the article. If you disagree with any of the copy edits, please feel free to leave a note below and we can discuss them. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   PARAKANYAA: Not required for GA, but generally, an article should stick to one citation style per WP:WHENINROME. You can also use {{sfnm}} to combine sfn templates. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

   No issue with that, but where does this article use multiple formats? As far as I'm aware, it's allowed in FAs to use both long and short cites if one kind is not paginated. All the paginated sources here are short cites, the ones without pages are long cites. This counts as one style. Or am I wrong? The one currently on the front page does it that way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

   Per WP:CITESTYLE, "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style". voorts (talk/contributions) 00:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

   Yes, but the style can apply differently to sources that are and aren't paginated. Or, I've seen it that way in many recent FAs, and no one has raised a complaint. Is there any other consistency issue or is it only that there is a difference with how paginated vs non-paginated is presented? I know this isn't important for a GA but I am surprised here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

   I've always understood stick with refs vs. sfn to be part of what CITESTYLE is saying, but maybe I'm wrong if nobody has raised this issue for FA articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   See source review below.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Look's okay per Earwig. Will also look into sources during the spot check. See spot check below.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   PARAKANYAA: I think the trial section can be trimmed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

   I trimmed less relevant details. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   See comment on NPOV below.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   PARAKANYAA: Are any images available other than the 9/11 photograph? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

   @Voorts No, nothing. Nothing free in any case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments (part 1)

• In the history and beliefs section, provide dates if you can. When did he work for France-Telecom, get his degree, and become a hitchhiker?
  • No source says when. Some sources specify he used to be a salesman for France-Telecom, but none mention when/where he got his degree. For context this is more or less every single source that has been written on the topic (except one website mentions something may have been written about it in the Fortean Times which alas, I could not find). The only date mentioned in the sources are when he was born, when he moved to Argentina, and when he joined Ouest-Phare.
• Another source described him as a "former hitchhiker". – Specify who this other source is.
  • did
• He was an obscure writer. – This needs more context. It seems kind of thrown into the middle of the paragraph there.
  • i moved this around into a different sentence where it fits better
• After Bougenec's death, Mussy formed a schismatic group, on the grounds that he considered the members of Phare-Ouest to be too religiously rigid "like the Pharisees"; though another source attributes this to both internal conflicts and his ambition. – Both of these claims need attribution.
  • did
• Two members of this group, a couple, had both been members of Phare-Ouest for seven years before Mussy joined, and went with him in the schism. – Why is this important (cf. WP:DUE)?
  • This is important because it's the same couple as later who allegedly attempted suicide: early on in my writing of the article I did not have their names censored so this was clearer. Their names are freely available in many of the sources, but Palmer 2011 decided to give them fake names (though she didn't in her 2008 work on the same topic), so this sentence now makes less sense. I'm unsure what I should do here; I feel it's relevant when they joined. But unlike Trossais they are still alive, so...
    • I think the issue is that you have a combined "History and beliefs" section. These sections should be separate. Additionally, the information about the couple and Trossais should be in the "Suicide and alleged attempts" section. That would make for a more coherent chronological narrative and allow the history section to focus on a broader view of the group's history.
      • I think that's a fair point, but I'm not sure if there's enough information on their beliefs to maintain its own section, given their brief existence and how their beliefs evolved over time, I'm not sure if they're necessarily easy to extract from each other. Originally the section was simply named "history" but I covered the evolution of their beliefs enough that I felt it was warranted, though I suppose it could be changed back. Additionally, given their legacy from Bougenec, the belief systems of that group somewhat naturally flow into the history. You have a point with the information on the couple and Trossais belonging in the other section so I will think on how to handle that (probably will move it down).
      • I moved the content about the couple down, where it now makes sense in context. I am undecided on the location of the information about Trossais because I feel it makes slightly more sense to establish this before.
        • It still feels out of place, and the end of the paragraph before it flows nicely into the next section. I think it should also be in the suicide section so that editors trying to read about Trossais can see his entire story in one section.
          • moved down, had to shuffle some things around
• They attempted to rebuild a life after an apocalypse that would be in line with the group's beliefs. – I'm not sure what this means.
  • I tried to rephrase it. Basically, the world will end and the group's mission was to rebuild the world after that according to their view
• The group lived cooperatively but not communally. – What's the distinction between the two?
  • hard to explain here given the sourcing, but i added a bit to make it clearer. a cooperative is different from a commune/Intentional community, for example
    • Does the sourcing say what kind of cooperative acts they engaged in? If so, specify those acts instead of using labels and attempting to draw a distinction based on the sources.
      • it says they lived together but kept working jobs (implied to be outside the group) and kept separate bank accounts.
• a 29-year-old gym instructor – When is this? 2001 when the group was formed? Please clarify.
  • Hm, it's when he died. I agree that his age might be different then, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Should I remove his age entirely?
    • Yes.
      • did that
• One commentator claimed this led to his abuse within the movement; however, Judas was actually viewed positively within their theology, as the "closest, most-beloved disciple" of Jesus, so this may not have been inherently stigmatizing. – The "commentator" and the portion after the semicolon both need attribution and should not be in wikivoice.
  • did
• classed as a doomsday cult – attribute
  • did
• Who claimed that Bougenec foresaw 9/11? Mussy? Another group member?
  • the source does not specify this, but implies the group as a whole thought it, so I can't do much here. the wording used here is "A. Bouguenec avait soit disant prévu dans ses écrits la destruction des tours de New York ! Le 11 septembre 2001 a donc été vécu comme la première étape vers l’apocalypse. Arnaud Mussy, fort des messages reçus par chanelling, surenchérit en décrétant que l’inverse du 11.09 est le 11.06 (en retournant le chiffre 9)." [A. Bouguenec had supposedly predicted in his writings the destruction of the New York towers! 11 September 2001 was therefore experienced as the first step towards the apocalypse. Arnaud Mussy, on the strength of the messages received by channeling, went one better by decreeing that the opposite of 11.09 is 11.06 (by turning the number 9 around).] edit: actually i am blind palmer says it was mussy, fixed
• Why is there a 0 in "11/06" but not in "11/9"?
  • fixed
• Mussy said that the attacks were a message from God to prepare for the end; he announced that the end of the world would occur on 29 December 2001. – I presume this prediction came after the 11/6 date came and went, but that's not clear in the text.
  • hm, the sources disagree. jougla 2003 says that he declared that the apocalypse would be 11/6/2002, but palmer says that: "He claimed that Bougenec had predicted the destruction of the Twin Towers, but had encrypted the date as “11/06.” Inverted, this became “9/11." palmer gives a more thorough rundown of events and doesn't mention mussy predicting an apocalypse that date, nor does any other source, and several sources explicitly identify the december date as the first, so i think this may be a minor mistake on jougla's part. i'll just change it to what palmer says
• That month – December?
  • clarified
• another member shouted out – What did they shout out?
  • she repeatedly said "beaucoup" which i don't think is a pertinent detail and i feel doesn't make a lot of sense in english (or at all) so it may actively detract from understanding
• When the apocalypse date arrived, nothing happened. Is this referring to September or December or another month?
  • clarified
• There were a few couple changes like this, though not all group members were affected. The preceding sentences make it seem like he made a lot of changes to couples, but then this sentence makes it seem like this was actually rare. Which was it?
  • all the source says is "There were changes 3 or 4 times. Not every couple changed." i don't think this is in contradiction to the previous sentence, because while the couples in the group were supposed to represent ideal couples i think that some of them were already in "ideal" pairings. or something like that. but i added the number
• In the last paragraph of the Apocalypse predictions section, the chronology is unclear. It jumps from the end of 2002 back to March.
  • i don't think so - the previous paragraph is about february 2002, and the next one has stuff about march. it says that mussy said the apocalypse would be in late 2002, but he said it in that period (february-march 2002), so i don't think that's an issue
• Were the group noticed by the police after the parents complained, or before? That's a bit unclear as written.
• When they stayed inside the house for a long period – specify how long
• In one instance, TF1 producers (who wanted the exclusive rights to make a documentary about the case) wanted them to look like the Solar Temple, surprised at their lack of belief similarities, and when they found out they did not, they left. This sentence is confusing. What did they find out they did not do? Who left and from where?
  • i personally think this anecdote is very interesting, but it's not key to understanding the OTS comparisons and I can't think of any way to have it make more sense, so i'll just remove it. but for context, the Solar Temple had an aesthetic (robes, candles, crosses, mystical rituals, templar stuff) which became france's default idea of cult, and the TF1 producers lost interest when this group did not fit into that idea. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    How about: At one point, producers for TF1, seeking exclusive rights to make a documentary, expected that the group's members would have the same aesthetics and ideological beliefs as the Solar Temple, such as [insert]. The documentarians, surprised that they did not, did not proceed with filming. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    Eh, I think it's just kind of extraneous at that point. Perhaps overdetailed. I'm fine with it being removed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• When did the media coverage begin? Before the suicide or after?
  • i can't find any source that specifies. there were complaints before but i can't see anything mentioning it made its way into the news. edit: nvm i cant read there is a mention of earlier news coverage, will add bit

Source review and spot checks (part 1)

Review of this version.

• Per WP:V, English language sources are preferred. If any of the sources cited can be replaced with English-language sources, you should generally do so. Could you check to see if that's possible without too much work?
  • Some of the statements are, but a lot of the sources that have them are inaccurate WP:PRIMARYNEWS reports, which are worse than the secondary French sources. No English coverage exists after 2002 besides Palmer and Coleman, AFAIK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Bourseiller 2014: Do you have any information about the publisher beyond what's on WorldCat? I also found this review of the book which says that it lacks references, which is problematic in my view, unless the publisher has a reputation for factchecking. In any event, since this is a French-language source, if it can be replaced, it should be.
  • The source is on Cairn.info (which is a WPL resource), link here. It has quite a few references as far as I remember so I'm not sure what it's talking about there. That review is for the first edition, which is quite different from the 2014 one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks. I'll take a look there, and acknowledged regarding the reliability of the publisher. Not required for GA, but it would be good to add links to the references in the sources section to databases. For example, Palmer 2008 is available on JSTOR and Palmer 2011 via OUP. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    added a DOI to palmer 2011, added Cairn.info links to Jougla and Bourseiller. i didn't have a jstor id on palmer 2008 because the jstor was the same as the DOI, so I assumed it would lead to jstor, but upon checking it did not, so added. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  • As to the publisher, Pocket is an imprint of Univers Poche see its frwiki article: fr:Pocket. They're generalist but generally well regarded.
• Ref 1: Only page 153 states when and where Mussy was born. I can't access ref 2a (Bourseiller 2014); does that support that Mussy was raised in Nantes?
  • it does, but now that I am thinking about it, the way this is phrased in french is ambiguous as to whether it's saying he was raised there, or was just living there around the time. I thought raised, but no other source mentions this. I think I'll just remove it
• Ref 6a: Good.
• Ref 8a: This supports that Bougenec led Phare-Ouest. I can't access ref 2c (Bourseiller 2014); does that support that the group had 40 members?
  • yes, quote: "Il dirige depuis 1989 l’association Phare-Ouest, forte d’environ quarante adhérents."
• Ref 9b/10a: I cannot access this source (Jougla 2003). Can you please provide quotes from the source (original French)?
  • It is also on Cairn.info, a WPL resource. See here
  • relevant quote: "Après le décès d’André Bouguenec en 1997, maître à penser du groupe Phare Ouest, des conflits internes et l’ambition personnelle d’Arnaud Mussy ont provoqué la scission du groupe et la création de Neo Phare à la tête duquel il s’est imposé comme leader et a élaboré petit à petit sa propre doctrine."
• Ref 15a/13b: Ref 13b (Palmer 2008, p. 112) does not support the statement.
  • Bourseiller supports it, I'll just remove Palmer. Quote: "Les frères Mussy n’avaient pas besoin de travailler car leur père avait laissé un héritage en propriétés immobilières et ils pouvaient vivre confortablement de leurs revenus"
• Ref 19a: This (Palmer 2011, p. 154) supports Early in the group's history, Mussy interpreted and taught Bougenec's ideas, but that page does not state that he later began to fulfill a more messianic role.
  • 154 says "In the early phase of Néo-Phare, Mussy's role was as a teacher and interpreter of Bougenec's philosophy. He held a conference in Paris in November 2001 and two at Vézelay on the 15th and 16th of December 2001. It was at Vézelay that the group experienced two events of “charismatic display” that propelled Arnaud Mussy into his new role as a messiah." It's not the precise wording she uses, but it carries the same meaning.
• Ref 20a: I cannot access the book (Coleman 2004, pp. 88–89). Can you please provide quotes?
  • yes: "Another scare occurred on September 5, 2002, when the guru of a tiny French doomsday cult under police suicide watch in Nantes, France [...] Arnaud Mussy, 36, denied any plans for a mass suicide, dismissing parallels that police and the media had made between his New Lighthouse sect and the Order of the Solar Temple cult."
• Ref 19e/15e: 19e (Palmer 2011, p. 154) supports this claim. There's no need for ref 15e.
  • removed
• Ref 11e: Good, but this appears to be too close paraphrasing: Mussy said he was not breaking people up, but reuniting people whose souls had been separated. vs. "Mussy insisted he was not breaking up marriages, simply reuniting souls who had been separated for eons in the Fallen World" (Palmer 2011, p. 155).
  • Hm yeah it's a bit too close. I tried to rephrase it PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• More to come.

Continuing review of this version:

• Refs 8b-d/26b-c: Good.
• Refs 29a-b: This appears to be on page 166, not 167, of Palmer 2011.
  • fixed. OUP page breaks on their pdfs are weird and it confused me
• Ref 31: This appears to be on page 151, not 152, of Palmer 2011.
  • fixed
• Ref 27d: Page 111 of Palmer 2008 does not mention a tulip. Page 114 discusses her climbing the tower with a rose in her mouth. (as does page 171 of Palmer 2011).
  • what kind of flower it was is disputed between sources it seems. palmer and bourseiller say rose, jougla says tulipe, news reports differ in every outlet. i'm just going to say flower
• Ref 34: Good.
• Refs 16d, 7g & 36b: 16d verifies that the neighbors were worried about an association with 9/11, not with the Solar Temple,; it does verify that "the French authorities" were concerned about another Solar Temple. I can't access 7g; please provide a quote. 36b verifies that the police were worried that they were like the Solar Temple.
  • Le Monde says that "En attendant, la police craint un suicide collectif, du type Ordre du Temple solaire", "In the meantime, the police fear a collective suicide, of the Order of the Solar Temple type". This verifies the quote. I interpreted the Independent piece as supporting it (the neighbours are worried. "What if they let the gas run and blew themselves up?" one asked." - not related to solar temple, but that they feared mass suicide), but it's slightly ambiguous, so I will just say police.
• I'm not sure if Jougla 2003 is reliable for facts. It appears to be an essay (or perhaps prepared remarks) about "the complexity and dangerousness of sectarian influence" and does not itself cite any reliable sources. I've been able to find very little on the publisher, Champ social, other than this writeup on Cairn.info.

  Jougla is a clinical psychologist who is widely cited on the issue of cults. The book appears to be an edited volume made up of peer reviewed conference papers. I remember looking into the press and they are cited decently but a small press, but I'll find more links to support that later PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  OK, after reviewing this book, I believe it to be generally reliable. Champ social is a well respected, if small, publisher. According to its introduction the book is an edited and peer reviewed collection of conference papers, which per Wikipedia:Tiers of reliability (essay, but one that seems grounded in generally accepted practice) is one of the best kinds of sources. As said above Jougla is a well regarded source. It was a slightly earlier analysis than the others here, so it's not perfect, but I would argue for its general reliability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't doubt that Jougla is a reliable source and that her analysis/interpretation of events is relevant, but since there are better sources for factual issues, those should be preferred unless it's really the only source that states a particular fact. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Fair. I'll reduce it. I believe she was the only source for some of the background/theology stuff, which I think is important, but otherwise it can be replaced. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Let me know when you're done with that and I'll do another spot check. (As you can see from my last edit, I found a citation error.) voorts (talk/contributions) 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  @voorts Jougla is now only cited to a few tidbits about their theology, her own opinion, and that the apocalypse date was Bougenec's birthday. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• I also don't believe that Coleman 2004 is reliable. The book was published by Paraview Press, which "primarily publishes books on body, mind, and spirit and the frontiers of science and culture"; "targets writers, readers, and viewers, so-called 'cultural creatives' who are transforming society and the world"; and "publishes unique and original books by well-known authors and researchers in the paranormal, spiritual, UFO, and conspiracy-theory fields".

  Google Books says the book was published by Simon & Schuster, which is a typical press. It also seems well cited in the topic area. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Fair points. Seems reliable if it's relied upon by other sources in the topic area. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

After reviewing Palmer 2008 and 2011 further, I think that Palmer, Mussy, Olivier, and Palmer's anonymous informant must always be attributed in context per WP:VOICE, which states that Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. I think the article should be clear what elements of the narrative are coming from those sources and what elements of the narrative are coming from the media or prosecution. I believe that it should be clear in the body of the article that Palmer is biased towards Mussy and that:

"[her] interpretation of events relies exclusively on three sources of data: [her] interviews with the Mussy brothers and the former member; media reports of Néo-Phare's controversial history; and accounts of the trial in the bulletins issued by ADFI Nantes, the local chapter of France's powerful anticult organization, UNADFI" (Palmer 2011, p. 153; see also Palmer 2008, p. 112).

For an example of Palmer's bias, see the following quote from Palmer 2011, p. 151 (emphasis added):

"A study of the trial of Arnaud Mussy clearly indicates that the standard tools and methods of social scientic research were not applied in the investigation. Throughout the trial, Néo-Phare was consistently portrayed as a stereotypical secte. Mussy was discredited in a facile manner, by name-calling, applying the prejudicial labels of 'manipulateur' and 'gourou.' The prosecution's conceptual approach veered toward psychological reductionism. The state of mind of the suicide victim and the complex phenomenon of religious conversion was reduced to pop-psychological clichés of the kind that prevails in anticult propaganda."

I am going to put this nomination on hold so that you can address these concerns within one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

(The one week begins upon your acknowledgement, not from when I placed the article on hold.) voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• I can attempt to resolve this, but I am unsure if this is fixable given sourcing (sourcing in this topic area as a whole can be difficult). Even if not resolvable, it will benefit the article to attempt to do so, so I will try and we will see. In retrospect I was admittedly sloppy with keeping track of who-said-what. There were so few people involved it's inherently a difficulty. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think I may restructure the suicide section to make this clearer. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I did some work on this and I think it's better but still not done. Will keep working on it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have attributed everything that is disputed between sources, mostly the coup sequence of events, which was probably the most contested part. I trimmed a lot of stuff. Do you still see any issue here? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Voorts I believe I have addressed the issues. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Do we know what Mussy is up to these days? Still alive? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was really curious about this, and after searching I have no clue. The latest source, Bourseiller from 2014, ends by stating: "On perd alors progressivement la trace du messie Arnaud Mussy…", which means "We gradually lose track of the messiah Arnaud Mussy...", so he couldn't find anything and seemingly went off the radar. He is definitely still alive (France has a complete list of all their death records, and he is not in them), but there is no trace of him. I searched for a while to see if I could find anything, not even for Wikipedia-usable sources, just to see, and found nothing. He probably changed his name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Copy edits

• Discuss here.

Round two

• I've reviewed Bourseiller 2014. Its only citations are to another Palmer article from 2006, which is presumably based on the same research that she used in her article and book chapter. I think that probably makes Bourseiller redundant to Palmer (see examples in the spot check below), unless there are things only in Bourseiller but not Palmer. Likewise, 3 instances of ref 14 can be removed because there's already a citation to an English secondary source (see the example below). Please check other French sources cited in the article as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  I removed Bourseiller when it was redundant, which was many cases but not all (some things, such as specific interpretations or notes, were only in his chapter). The news sources are quite different and are mostly only there for specific details. I removed some of the instances of ref 14 that were duplicative (I thought redundancy was good, so apologies for all this haha). Will double check. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Not required for GA, but adding archive links to cites is generally a good thing in my view.
• I think it would be appropriate to summarize Jougla in the Aftermath section.

Spot check 2

• Starting with this version.
• Refs 1/2a: Supported by p. 153, but not 147. 2a (Bourseiller 2014) can be removed.
• Ref 12: Bourseiller 2014, can be replaced with citation to Palmer 2011, p. 153.
• Refs 13a/14a/15a: 13a does not support the text, 14a only supports the claim about Peter, 15a is to Bourseiller 2014; all can be replaced with one citation to Palmer 2011, p. 153 where 15a currently is.
• Refs 7b/7c: Good (but you can delete 7b since it's redundant).
• Ref 19a: Good.
• More to come.
• Picking up with this version.
• 13b/10b: Good.
• 13d: Good.
• 9b: Good.
• 13e/13f/9f/13g: These can all be replaced with one cite to Palmer 2011, pp. 154–155 at the end of the paragraph.
• 16a: Good.
• 20a: Should be p. 166 not 167.
• 22a: Good.
• 26c: Good.
• 6h: Good.
• 5d/29a: Can't access 5, but 29a is good.
• 3c/30b: Good.
• 10e/5g/14c: 10e supports denial of responsibility, can't access 5, per the quote above 14 supports he denied that it was a cult. Which source supports the claim that Mussy "denied that his group would kill themselves, saying that death was not the way out"?
• 31: Good.
• 21b: Good.
• 34/17c: Good.
• 40a/20b: 40a should be just p. 112, 20b should be pp. 167–168.
• 40b: Good
• 21c/2b: Good.
• 23c: Good.
• 21d: Good.
• 43/2c: Good. 2 is not needed.
• 23f: Good.
• 45a/11c: Good, but introduce who Brard is in-text.
• 11d: Good.
• 41c: Good.
• 47/18c: Good.

Given that there's only one real error in the spot check here and the rest of my comments have been addressed to my satisfaction, I will be passing this article. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Loren Coleman

Hello PARAKANYAA, firstly thanks for this article.

I noticed you reverted the author-link I added to Loren Coleman with the edit summary "not the same Loren Coleman". Before adding that link I did due research to confirm they were the same person and I remain convinced it is indeed the same, ie the "cryptozoologist".

The author-link I added was for the Sources book: Coleman, Loren L. (2004) The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow's Headlines, specifically the chapter "Cultic Copycats", published by Simon & Schuster in 2004, ISBN 978-1-4165-0554-9.

On the Loren Coleman article I linked, there is mention of the book he authored, in the section The Copycat Effect, and in the Bibliography "The Copycat Effect (New York: Paraview Pocket-Simon & Schuster, 2004, ISBN 0-7434-8223-9)". See current ref 21 in that article: "Coleman, Loren (2004). The copycat effect : how the media and popular culture trigger the mayhem in tomorrow's headlines (1st ed.). New York: Paraview Pocket Books. ISBN 0-7434-8223-9"

My search for, and comparison of, the 2 ISBNs showed that:

• ISBN 0-7434-8223-9 was published by Gallery Books which is an imprint of Simon & Schuster. It is the paperback version.

• The ISBN you used in Néo-Phare, 978-1-4165-0554-9, is the ebook version published by Pocket Books, another Simon & Schuster imprint.

(I am not sure where the middle initial "L." that you use comes from. It does not appear on either of the ISBN search results. We do have an article for a Loren L. Coleman, which is unrelated to this author.)

Anyway, I'll leave it to you. I enjoyed reading the article and look forward to more. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@JennyOz I thought that section was a WP:CHIMERA, but reading the Boston Globe source it is in fact the same person! Sorry for reverting you D: PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Suicide expert and cryptozoologist. Interesting combination. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed! Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

And for future reference, I believe the L. came from the usage of that book as a citation on the doomsday cult page. I have a tendency to copy citations from related pages, and that article always said the book was written by a Loren L. Coleman. Looking at the page history this has been a mistake since that article was created by User:Cirt in 2007. I have now corrected it; I assume they confused the two people, or just wanted to pretend it was the other guy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)