Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:42, 8 December 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New England Institute of Religious Research article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about New England Institute of Religious Research. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about New England Institute of Religious Research at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

A fact from New England Institute of Religious Research appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 September 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know ... that the co-founder of the New England Institute of Religious Research was a court-appointed guardian of 13 children removed from a religious sect in Attleboro, Massachusetts? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2009/September.

Removed info not supported by cited source

• "Bob Pardon to the Rescue". The Boston Phoenix. Retrieved 2009-10-29.

Recent changes to the article do not appear to be supported by this given source. Cirt (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

= Info not supported by cited source was added back again by Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs), I then left a message at the user's talk page . Cirt (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cirt i commend you for trying to keep the page clean of misinformation, Any page that is about NRM requires constant vigilance. as to my particular criticism on whether it is a research group or anti-cult ministry, i understand you concern with me labeling this group to discredit it. however hear is the quote "Andrew Walsh, a religious historian at Trinity College in Hartford, finds this troubling. "I’m by no means an expert on cults," Walsh says. "I wouldn’t go around saying that what Robert Pardon does is bad for people. But what’s interesting to me is that he got an awful lot of mileage out of being a ‘cult expert’ while not being open about that fact that he is religious himself. His group sounds academic and nonprofit-y, and he presents it that way because if he called it the Anti-Cult Ministry, people wouldn’t call him, judges wouldn’t call him. It seemed to me that he positioned himself as a kind of free agent able to comment objectively about the case, and journalists just ate that up and gave him oceans of ink without saying who he was." i also intend to use an article from the Academic Journal for additional criticism "Religion in the News" http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol3No3/cult_fighting.htm i also intend to find the source you used yourself as a source: Eileen, McNamara (February 3, 2002). "Investigator on a Mission". The Boston Globe (Globe Newspaper Company): p. B1. the issue i find with this page is its seems unbalanced i am attempting to add balance currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs)

Again - source does not support the changes you made. And then you also made changes further down the page of the article not supported by any sources. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

as to my particular criticism on whether it is a research group or anti-cult ministry, i understand you concern with me labeling this group to discredit it. = this admission by Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) is particularly troubling. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

entirely false totally taken out of context, all i meant was i understand that Cirt beleives me to be trying to discredit the Neirr, i am merely using that states that the gorup masquerades as non-profit while actually ministering to these "brainwashed" indivisuals. To call it a research group is laughable this guy attacks the unitarians as a cult mormons and Baha'i. the board of the orginzation consists of nearly entirley Reverends along with a therapist and lawyer hardly academic Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is not here for you to present your personal opinion of what you think of the organization. Cirt (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

POV opinion commentary

These sorts of POV opinion are best for the Commentary subsection. Cirt (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

= sources do not support changes. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It would seem from these repeated virtually identical style of edit behavior that it is a singular goal of the account Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) to change the lede definition of the organization from the NPOV "research group" to the POV-pushing "anti-cult ministry". Cirt (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Group never identifies itself as a Research Group But rather a "Mission" and uses the "Another important dimension of Institute ministry" later in the same paragraph of the Who We are section "NEIRR is deeply grateful to all those who have helped this ministry". the neutrality of the article is also in question the whole article sounds like an advertisement to me The article i used the first time i had confused as the article i just used. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Every single one of your edits appears to be with the singular intention of attempting to denigrate this existing organization, in some cases with info from dubious sources, and as shown above, in some cases with information not backed up to any sources. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, yet again having to fix some of this new material which was both not NPOV and not in accordance with the sources it purported to cite. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not try to try to "denigrate" this organization any more than i think you try to "promote" the organization by contributing only positive information. A simple google search turns up criticism or rather "outside the mainstream views" the institute holds, I have only used articles I have perceived as valid. You have cherry picked statements made on this page to try and to imply COI to discourage me to from editing the article. I have referred this mutual disagreement on the exact nature of the Institute to hopefully to try to resolve this disagreement. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you check the format of the article prior to your arrival, you will see that I actually did include negative material, for example Associated Press commentary. However, I agree that WP:3O is an appropriate way to go for now. Cirt (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you see it as criticism there are number of people who would consider it a endorsement of the organization by the AP Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I realize that the creator of this entry has done a meticulous job of using every reference mentioning this organization but I wonder if these sources help the article meet the following criteria:

• An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

In other words coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources more than incidental? I'm not sure either way and am not saying it isn't but its a fair question. If so would it be possible to list a couple of those so that one doesn't have to slog through every one of them to find this out. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class psychology articles
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• Start-Class New religious movements articles
• Mid-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles