User talk:Steven Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal8

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Draft 1 The only change is that The movement, which some sources say was influenced by the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, was, in the West, often labeled as a new religious movement, a sect or a cult. Officials of the DLM said it was not a religion. becomes The movement, which some sources say was influenced by the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, was, in the West, considered a new religious movement, and often labeled a sect or cult. DLM officials said the movement represented a church rather than a religion. I don't see any problem with the "church" part since it's in the text (though I'm not sure it's necessary in the intro). But what's our basis for saying that the DLM was considered an NRM but labeled a cult or sect? Why not use the same term for all three? Do we have a source that makes this distinciton or is it OR? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC) The phrase "label(l)ed a new religious movement" is not idiomatic. [1][2]. "Labelled a cult", however, is: [3][4]. "Considered an NRM" reflects the scholarly categorisation. --Jayen466 12:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC) "DLM said it was not a religion" is not an adequate summary of "DLM said the movement represented a church rather than a religion", which implies some sort of religious character inherent in the meaning of the word "church". --Jayen466 12:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC) The IRS has never specifically defined what it means by the church designation, however, it has set some parameters and characteristics a group/org must have in order for it to get the designation from that agency. All 501(c)3 orgs. are not designated as churches in the U.S. Elan Vital is. See IRS church defined. Also see Wiktionary definition of church. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I beg to differ, I have seen the definition, though might have trouble finding it again now. It reads something like, "Church: An organisation that facilitates the gathering of people to worship a higher power." Rumiton (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC) "Labelled"/"Considered" : Why don't we use "considered" for all three terms. It is clear that the DLM was considered a sect and a cult by some. I don't understnad what basis there is for using different verbs for the different nouns. That is obvious, is it not? "Sect" and "cult" are popular pejoratives, and their use is eschewed by the most reliable and up-to-date sources, i.e. present-day scholarship. [5] --Jayen466 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC) What's our source for using "labelled" for one term and "considered" for the other? The distinction you're making appears to the WP:SYNTH. Simply using the same verb, whichever it is, is neutral. Using different verbs is POV and must be sourced if not attributed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Using the same verb would imply that all three descriptors represent the same level of neutrality and scientific exactitude, which is not the case. The term 'NRMs' is the preferred and generally accepted term for academics, because, first, it is considered neutral and value-free – unlike 'cult' or 'sect', which have negative connotations ... Second, 'cult' and 'sect' are technical terms in the sociology of religion to describe types of groups distinctly different from NRMs so 'NRM' serves to maintain precision and avoid confusion. — Researching New Religious Movements: Responses and Redefinitions By Elisabeth Arweck] As the above quote makes clear, NRM is the NPOV term. If you want to say "was considered a sect or cult", then you have to say who considered it a sect or cult and attribute the POV. In the 1970s and 1980s we saw an explosion of new religious groups in America, many of which came to be labeled by their detractors as "cults." ... Groups that have commonly been identified as cults include those with non-Western flavors such as the ISKCON, the Divine Light Movement (DLM) — Joining a 'Cult': Religious Choice or Psychological Aberration? Journal article by Dena S. Davis; Journal of Law and Health, Vol. 11, 1996 Where the media and scholarship are in conflict, we should follow the scholarly view. --Jayen466 11:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Find a source that uses the different verbs. Otherwise it's POV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I thought I did. The above Davis paper describes DLM (and others) as new religious movements ("these are truly new religious movements ...") and adds that their detractors "labeled" them cults. Perhaps we should let this discussion rest for a few days, then we can all mull over it. Jayen466 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I'll keep mullng it over, but it appears to me that the last source there, Davis, uses the verb "identified". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Indeed it does, but not without first stating in the introduction that this was a label applied by detractors. They are the ones doing the "identifying". If you'd like to read it in context, the paper is online in questia, as well as here. The sentence using the word "identified" is in section II; the very next sentence uses "labeled as cults" again. Cheers, --Jayen466 23:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Btw, the paper also mentions a DLM-related kidnapping/deprogramming case (the Dietz case). --Jayen466 23:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC) "Religion"/"Church" : We also have quotes from spokemen saying the DLM is only registered as a religion for financial purposes. I'm not sure how much detail we need for the intro. As I mentioned elsewhere, NRMs often try to avoid association with the term "religion", since they feel the word has acquired a stuffy flavour that does not reflect what they aspire to be about. But given that the focus of DLM was self-knowledge and meditation, its religious nature is evident. Meditation is a religious technique. --Jayen466 00:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I understand that and it's why the current text says they deny being a religion. Why add the part about being a church? What does it add to the intro? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC) What does it add to the intro?: Precision. --Jayen466 12:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC) It would also add precision to report that they say they are only registered as a religion for financial purposes. However precision takes space. The point of an intro isn't to be precise -just the opposite- its point is to summarize. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I think increasing the number of words in that sentence by 2 would not inflate the lede unduly. But as above, let's give it a rest for the mo. (As for the tax thing -- one thing to consider is that in many countries, a spiritual movement that wants to avoid using the label "religion" for itself, for whatever reason, is forced to use it in tax and legal contexts (or forego the privileges that other communities enjoy), simply because the letter of the law does not provide any other categories. That's different from country to country. In Germany, for example, "religious" and "ideological" communities are treated equally by the Constitution. So atheist groups for example qualify for the same tax breaks as Christian denominations, and enjoy the same freedom guarantees.) Cheers, --Jayen466 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Other versions: Would the authors of other versions please start threads to explain their edits? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 3 More accurate presentation/ summary of the material article, in particular to the fact that there have been conflicting reports on the "labeling" of the movement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC) That version appears to give undue weight to terms that were rarely used. How many sources call it "an alternative religion or spin-off from other traditional religions"? Also, what basis is there for using different verbs, as in "was considered a new religious movement and categorized in numerous and sometimes conflicting terms including cult, a charismatic religious sect..." Why not say that it was "considered" or "categorized" for all the terms? What source do we have for making that distinction? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC) That version stays true to what the article says. A lead needs to summarize the article and not give special treatment to some material at the expense of other materials. The fact is that there are competing and contradictory terms as it relates to the description of this movement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) What is the source for using "considered" versus "categorized"? As for the minor items, the article says many things that we don't include in the intro, where we only have room for the main themes. How many sources call the DLM a "spin-off from other traditional religions"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC) My argument is that there have been competing and contradictory terms used. And that is a fact that needs to be stated in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC) That can be stated without bringing in terms that have only been used very rarely. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I have reservations about "...spin-off from other traditional religions", not having heard of this before, but the rest of this proposal looks fine to me. I think the summary of descriptions seems about right. Rumiton (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Actually now I look at it, "...categorized in numerous and sometimes conflicting terms" does not work either. One does not really "categorise in terms." I will try to do better. Rumiton (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 4 Linguistically and stylistically it works, but I would like to retain the distinction between scholarly terminology and careless popular use. --Jayen466 18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC) I think this version is good. I disagree with Jayen about the need to make a distinction in the intro - all the terms were used by scholars and popular sources alike. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC) I think the phrase "The western movement" is misplaced. "The western movement, which some sources say was influenced by the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, ..." implies that the eastern movement had different influences. I expect the intent was to place it so that the other descriptions apply to it and not the eastern movement. Can we really make that distinction? Most sources I've read treat the DLM as one movement until the rift. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Scholarly use has changed somewhat since the 1970s, where there was some confusion in scholarly materials as well. I believe we should generally use current, rather than outdated scholarly terms. --Jayen466 18:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC) That was not the intent at all, Will, of course the influences on both organisations were exactly the same. Indeed they started as the same movement. I just tried to make it read better, but I see the problem you raise. I will try to make it clearer, and try to accommodate Jayen's point also. Clearly the DLM's idealogical relationship with Sant Mat and the Bhagavad Gita was not particularly clear to the afternoon dailies, but was discerned by the more scholarly sources. This is an important point. Rumiton (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC) The changes you made take care of that problem but raise another. "... the western movement was popularly seen as...X,Y,Z" implies that scholars did not also see it as X,Y,Z, while in fact they did. I think the "widely" that was there before is better. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC) All right, I can see that, too. Changed. Rumiton (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC) It looks good to me. I have no objections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I can live with it. --Jayen466 18:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Are we all agreed to drop Draft 4 in then? Jayen466 12:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I can live with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Quick note Just a note, in future, please add links to new proposals onto that page. It's the only way I know there are new proposals :). Thanks. Steve Crossin (contact) 01:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Sure, will do. --Jayen466 12:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)