Talk:Self religion

"Some others"

I'm not exactly sure who the others are, actually. However, those names were included as alterate names which have been applied to groups of this kind in the source I used. John Carter (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sentence removed

This sentence makes no sense and seems out of context with the article topic. If any editor can make it relevant and provide a source it can be placed back in the article.

• Werner Erhard specifically compared the experience of "getting it" as per Erhard Seminars Training (est) to satori.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is referenced from the Chrissides book. I'm assuming the reason for its inclusion in his entry was that it helps establish the similarity of these groups and what might be called "traditional" religion. The two sentences tagged with quality tags are sourced from the same book. Unfortunately, he didn't give any further details, so those details aren't included. If you can think of any way to alter the text to resolve those concerns, please feel free to suggest them. John Carter (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for your comment. The sentence gives info that is related to the topic but is not on the topic ie it tells us about EST not about the term Self Religion. It's possible it could be amended per the source and made acceptable in some way. Do you have a link to the source online that I could look at?-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability Tag and Sources

Hi John, I am a little bit confuse about this article. The term is defined as one coined by John Heelas and the definition of the term is sourced to Chrysiddes. But when I go to Google books and search both of their books for the term Self Religion, there appears to be no such term. Also, when I do a general Google search for the term Self Relgion, there are no search results for that phrase. So I'm a little confused. Are you able to cite some sources where this exact term is used and defined? I see you are an administrator and an experienced Wiki editor and I look forward to working with you, if I can be of some help on this article. Thanks, -- — Kbob • Talk • 02:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Keithbob. This article seems to lack notablity and has a week premise in that is is based on what one person said. I think this article is also a bit of a coat rack too.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it should be nominated for deletion?-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I do think this should be nominated for deletion. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK AFD sounds good to me but I've invited another editor who is active on the page to enter this discussion. Let's get his input also.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please see summary of Notability and AfD Discussion below-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Page Numbers Needed for These Citations

1. ^ For example in Heelas, Paul (1991), ""Cults for capitalism? self religions, magic and the empowerment of business", in Gee, Peter; Fulton, John, Religion and power, decline and growth: sociological analyses of religion in Britain, Poland, and the Americas, Twickenham: British Sociological Association, Sociology of Religion Study Group, ISBN 0951722409
2. ^ Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (2004). Woodhead, Linda. ed. "New Age Religion". Religions in Modern World: Traditions and Transformations (Routledge): 287-304. "[...] New Age spirituality has indeed sometimes been dubbed 'self religion'(Heelas, 1996).".
3. ^ Heelas, Paul (1996). The New Age movement: the celebration of the self and the sacralization of modernity (reprint ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9780631193326. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lBC5UHkEFXkC. Retrieved 2009-09-24.

Removed unsourced text with no verifiable connection to the article topic

• Some individuals and groups take issue with Heelas regarding the elements of the designation "self religion".
• Transcendental meditation sees its technique as non-religious,[1]and some other groups regard themselves as non-religious.
• The Church of Scientology, a self-proclaimed religion, views the development of the self as only one of its goals.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed citations for Chryssides

This article seems to be built on a weak foundation as Google search yields zero results. I am therefore a bit skeptical about the citations in the article. For this reason I have removed the Chryssides citations because the book is not available for viewing on Google Books or Amazon. It also has a retail cost of $125 and is not available at my library. Because it is relatively un-verifiable I have temporarily removed the citations. If someone has the book and can provide some quotes than we can put the citations back in and include the quotes so editors can feel comfortable that the text has reliable and verifiable sources. Thanks for you help. All the best,-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Difficulty in obtaining a source is the last reason to remove it, though ultimately necessary. However, that book is in the reference section of a local library. Next time I go there I'll copy that material. Historical dictionary of new religious movements/ George D. Chryssides. Lanham, Md. : Scarecrow Press, 2001.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If deletion of the article is contemplated then the Chryssides material should be restored so that the notability of the topic can be judged properly.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, it's available in about 400 libraries, which is pretty good as books go.[2]   Will Beback  talk  03:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes Chryssides is a known author in this area. Glad you have access to the source. Here's the ref info I deleted in case it is helpful: ref name="Chryssides">Chryssides, pp. 290-291.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Will, any comments on the above discussion on possible AFD? Your thoughts?-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The topic seems at least somewhat notable. In addition to Heela's own writing, and the entry in Chryssides, it is also discussed in these books:

• Contemporary religious Satanism: a critical anthology Jesper Aagaard Petersen, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009 ISBN 9780754652861 [3]
• Contemporary New Age Transformation in Taiwan: A Sociological Study of a New Religious Movement Shu-Chuan Chen, Shuquan Chen, Edwin Mellen Press, 2008 ISBN 9780773448803 [4]
• Tourism, religion and spiritual journeys, Dallen J. Timothy, Daniel H. Olsen Routledge, 2006 ISBN 9780415354455 [5]
• Religion, theology, and the human sciences Richard H. Roberts, Cambridge University Press, 2002 ISBN 9780521795081 [6]

And that's just based on a quick Google search.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please see summary of Notability and AfD Discussion below-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Text Removed

I removed the text below as it is sorely lacking in citations and the few citations given don't appear to mention the subject of the article ie Self Religion.

• The Gurdjieff Work
• Arica
• the Emin Foundation
• The School of Economic Science

Several of the groups characterized as self religions derive (directly or indirectly) from Mind Dynamics (1968-1973), which itself developed from Silva Mind Control. Such derivative groups include:

• Erhard Seminars Training or est (traceable back to Mind Dynamics, est later developed into The Forum and into Landmark Education)
• PSI Seminars
• the School of Economic Science
• Lifespring
• Insight Seminars and the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness
• Actualizations (founded by Stewart Emery and Carol Augustus)
• Programmes Ltd. (formerly Exegesis)
• Walter Bellin's group Self-Transformation
• Samuri
• Lifestream Seminars
• the Living Game
• Ole Larsen's isa (Institute for Self Actualization)
• Pat Grove's i am
• Life Training-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability and AfD Discussion (relevant comments from prior sections copied to here for continuity)

Hi John, I am a little bit confuse about this article. The term is defined as one coined by John Heelas and the definition of the term is sourced to Chrysiddes. But when I go to Google books and search both of their books for the term Self Religion, there appears to be no such term. Also, when I do a general Google search for the term Self Relgion, there are no search results for that phrase. So I'm a little confused. Are you able to cite some sources where this exact term is used and defined? I see you are an administrator and an experienced Wiki editor and I look forward to working with you, if I can be of some help on this article. Thanks, -- — Kbob • Talk • 02:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Keithbob. This article seems to lack notablity and has a week premise in that is is based on what one person said. I think this article is also a bit of a coat rack too.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it should be nominated for deletion?-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I do think this should be nominated for deletion. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK AFD sounds good to me but I've invited another editor who is active on the page to enter this discussion. Let's get his input also.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to be built on a weak foundation as Google search yields zero results. I am therefore a bit skeptical about the citations in the article. For this reason I have removed the Chryssides citations because the book is not available for viewing on Google Books or Amazon. It also has a retail cost of $125 and is not available at my library. Because it is relatively un-verifiable I have temporarily removed the citations. If someone has the book and can provide some quotes than we can put the citations back in and include the quotes so editors can feel comfortable that the text has reliable and verifiable sources. Thanks for you help. All the best,-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Difficulty in obtaining a source is the last reason to remove it, though ultimately necessary. However, that book is in the reference section of a local library. Next time I go there I'll copy that material. Historical dictionary of new religious movements/ George D. Chryssides. Lanham, Md. : Scarecrow Press, 2001. Will Beback talk 00:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If deletion of the article is contemplated then the Chryssides material should be restored so that the notability of the topic can be judged properly. Will Beback talk 00:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, it's available in about 400 libraries, which is pretty good as books go.[2] Will Beback talk 03:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes Chryssides is a known author in this area. Glad you have access to the source. Here's the ref info I deleted in case it is helpful: ref name="Chryssides">Chryssides, pp. 290-291.[Need quotation on talk to verify]-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Will, any comments on the above discussion on possible AFD? Your thoughts?-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The topic seems at least somewhat notable. In addition to Heela's own writing, and the entry in Chryssides, it is also discussed in these books:

• Contemporary religious Satanism: a critical anthology Jesper Aagaard Petersen, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009 ISBN 9780754652861 [7]
• Contemporary New Age Transformation in Taiwan: A Sociological Study of a New Religious Movement Shu-Chuan Chen, Shuquan Chen, Edwin Mellen Press, 2008 ISBN 9780773448803 [8]
• Tourism, religion and spiritual journeys, Dallen J. Timothy, Daniel H. Olsen Routledge, 2006 ISBN 9780415354455 [9]
• Religion, theology, and the human sciences Richard H. Roberts, Cambridge University Press, 2002 ISBN 9780521795081 [10]

And that's just based on a quick Google search.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It comes up as zero hits on a general Google search so I'm a bit skeptical that this an OR or coatrack subject even with the sources you have cited above. But I'll put my skepticism in lay away for a while and see if you or any other editors are able to build the article into something notable and in accordance with Wiki guidelines.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Google hits can be flaky. I found those references through Google, and you can search them yourself. I'm not sure I understand the objection to this article. It seems to qualify as a concept that has achieved some currency in the relevant field.   Will Beback  talk  17:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The question about the term I can understand. Like the article says, it was coined by one figure. That figure, however, appeared to have other sources, perhaps using other terms or perhaps no specific terms at all, just general descriptions, which led him to believe the subject notable enough. I can try to review his bibliography and entry to see what other terms had been used before that. As I remember, he cited at least a few other, alternate terms for such groups. I basically chose this term as the title for the article on the basis of that being the "name" the article was given in that encyclopedia entry. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Chryssides states, "Other writers have used terms such as Human Potential Movement (q.v.) - although this term covers a wide range of therapies and spiritualities - para-religions, or therapy cults." (pp. 290-291) As indicated, the volume does have a separate entry on Human Potential Movement, which it describes as rather broader. It also seems to be that the alternate terms "para-religion" and "therapy cult" could very well be more easily construed as more perjorative. John Carter (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As this discussion reflects, this article is almost impossible to expand without doing original research. I for one actually think it is impossible and should be deleted based on WP:NORElmmapleoakpine (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does the article need to be expanded?   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the hard work that went into adding the many citations and cleaning up the article. It is still my opinion that the subject is not in and of itself notable and most of the article is a coatrack, combining like terms (WP:NOR)and ideas from various authors. In my opinion it should be considered for deletion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since there are two editors on either side of this issue. I would suggest we get some input from some uninvolved editors and see what they think.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've ordered Contemporary religious Satanism: a critical anthology, which has an entire chapter devoted to Heelas's concept of self religion as it can be applied to satanism, and will add material when it's available. Can you specify what coatrack and NOR issues you see in the article?   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how one(1) religion matching the description of “self religion” makes this article notable. The example section is mostly made up of organizations that are NOT religious and do not belong here. Unless you can find more examples of religions that focus on self improvement this subject belongs to the article(s) on Satanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.91.246 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Notabilty

This whole article seems to be in one way or another based on Heelas. Most of the other references if they talk about the concept of Self-Religion are quoting Heelas. It leaves me wondering "Is self-religion actually a thing?" or is it the supposition of one academic that has been at least in part turned into an article to bolster POV about cults/NRMs etc. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Notabilty

This whole article seems to be in one way or another based on Heelas. Most of the other references if they talk about the concept of Self-Religion are quoting Heelas. It leaves me wondering "Is self-religion actually a thing?" or is it the supposition of one academic that has been at least in part turned into an article to bolster POV about cults/NRMs etc. For example many of the examples given for this are companies and organizations presenting seminars, est, exegesis, lifespring, landmark insight etc. all have a similar purpose related self awarenss, but if you read their articles none claim to be religious or spritual. If there are no rituals, devotional activities or worship, and no claims of being spiritual or religious, how then can one person making a such assertions justify having an article like this Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)