Talk:Sociological classifications of religious movements

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Misc

See talk:church-sect typology

The fact that Schnabel is Dutch is irrelevant. Andries 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the writer can be seen in the citation. Andries 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language is not the only issue, he is relatively unknown and needs that context. In any case, I do not see merit in this article as a standalone article, unless many other classifications are added. There is plently of material on the subject on Cults and New religious movements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already added the relevant context i.e. that he is a sociologist and that his work was in Dutch. I do not understand why his nationality is important. Andries 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because he is mostly unknown. We mention a scholar nationality in many instances, and this is one that is worthwhile mentioning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to give examples. Andries 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wallis' stuff needs to be moved to New religious movements where it will be a worthy addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please summarize or copy do not move. Andries 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose moving, because the listed references show that these classifictions are usually treated together. Andries 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be merged after merging cult and new religious movement into cults and new religious movements, but this was rejected a few years back. See Talk:Cult/Archive_3#Merge_with_NRM_into_Cults_and_new_religious_movements_.3FMerging cult and new religious movement would be big and controversial undertaking because a whole set of entries would need to be merged, re-named and moved. It is in that respect like re-structuring the entries history of Pakistan/History of India/History of South Asia. I tried it but it was too difficult, too controversial, and too much work. Andries 21:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Andries, but I do not see the point of this article, when we have already articles on these subjects. Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These classifications are usually treated together and they cannot be merged to cult or new religious movement because they use both terms. Andries 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We also have Church-sect typology, and other similar article so I could understand the need for an article that brings it all together But it needs to become a summary article that summarizes content from existing articles on the subject and not a POV fork ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing similar in contents to this article except client cult so this article is not POV fork. Andries 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you can make it clear why your introduction from Church-sect typology is on-topic, because I do not see it now. Andries 21:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the section titles "cult" and "new religious movement". The sociologists did not in their definitions put emphasis on the terms "cult" and "new religious movements". Andries 22:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The templates Main article cult and Main article new religious movement falsely suggest that more about these classifications can be found at cult and new religious movements. Andries 22:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some sources, reorganized article as per your concerns above, fixed some ELs and added a link to Wikisource where all the docs about DIMPAC are available in full. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why is the wikisource text of the DIMPAC relevant for this article? I do not see it. Andries 01:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand and rename this entry into sociological classifications of religious movements?

I propose to expand and re-name this entry into sociological classifications of religious movements. I still think that the church-sect typology is off-topic with the current title which describes the differences between cults/new religious movements versus other religious movements, such as churches, sects and denominations. Church-sect typology does not distinguish between different types of cults.Andries 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)amended 21:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)~[reply]

Sure, that would work and make the article more interesting and useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Saliba's view should go

The view that he presents is not a sociological view on the matter. Hence it is off topic in this article. Andries 10:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I re-read it and I admit that it on topic. Andries 10:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery cults why is this on topic

I fail to see how the section on mystery cults is part of the sociological classifications of religious movements. I never saw that in any sociology book or book about the sociology of religion. Andries 10:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I fail to see why the text in this article needs to be separate from Church-sect typology. Will merge in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because a classification of cults and NRMs is not part of the church-sect typology. Merge the other way would be a reasonable possibility though. Andries (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure about Wallis' distinction between sects and cults

I am not sure whether Roy Wallis distinction between sects and cults is part of the church sect typology. I think not and that it grew out of his criticism that the church sect typology is not a universal approach but highly dependent on the culture of the society in question. Andries (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cults

I fail to see why Mormons are the only group picked on as a cult. Zarahemlite (talk) 23 May 2008

Section-hdg casings

It seems clear that an editor either failed to grasp rock-solid MoS guidelines (perhaps even policy) on casing WP (page & secn) titles, or was confused by unusual usage in titles and/or body text in various sources. Sect ideologies and social status by Gary Schwartz and excerpt attrib to Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions furnish clear and authoritative guidance implying the secn title "Sociological church-sect typology" and Understanding New Religious Movements by John A. Saliba and our own New religious movement and List of new religious movements do the same for "Cults or new religious movements"; in each case, i have preserved the effectiveness of any links to the respective previous section titles.
--Jerzy•t 06:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Stark and Bainbridge" section

the following sentence needs fixing:
  3. cult movements, which seek to provide services that meet all of their adherents' spiritual needs (although they differ significantly in the degree to which they use mobilize adherents' time and commitment)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fp cassini (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Sociologists

Shouldn't this article have sociologists associated with the different type of religious movements? For example, Reinhold Niebuhr reported that sects evolved into denominations gradually over time. Friendly Ed (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed things

Had to remove cult things, this the sociological term. popular stuff i removed stuff belongs in "Cult" as in the popular term. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contraditory examples

Methodists, Baptists, and Seventh-day Adventists are given as examples of both denomination and sect. Surely the examples could be less ambiguous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)hkjljcuj[reply]


Requested move 14 April 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sociological classifications of religious movements → Classifications of religious movements – I don't think that there's any reason for the use of "sociological". Most theories are not classified by field, and they are often at least partially interdisciplinary. Applicable naming policies are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE - the word sociological is not commonly used with that theory, nor is the precision necessary for disambiguation. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support. There are other disciplines apart from sociology which classify religious movements, and I think renaming would make it possible to broaden the article to include those. Should it the article ever become too long, which is doubtful, then sub-articles on religious typologies from psychology, sociology and other perspectives could be spun off to give more detail. • Astynax talk 16:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I proposed the original title "sociological classifications of religious movements" and I oppose the name change. I do not think that including Catholics classifications of religious movements, Islamic classifications, Jehovah classificiations etc. in this article would make this it more useful. I am quite sure people can find these classifications in reliable sources. if they do the effort. Andries (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely opinionated.

The author of this page did NOT write with a neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.64.29 (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Classifications of religious movements. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original name was there for a reason

I proposed the original title "sociological classifications of religious movements" and I oppose the name change. I do not think that including Catholics classifications of religious movements, Islamic classifications, Jehovah classificiations etc. in this article would make this it more useful. I am quite sure people can find these classifications in reliable sources. if they do the effort. Andries (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. The important point is the sociological classification.Editor2020 (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since the previous 2014 discussion only had two support !votes and we are now three acknowledging that sociology is very important for the scope, I have boldly moved the page back. If it's contested, we can go through requested moves again. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Church-sect typology

In the article it is claimed that: "This church-sect typology has its origins in the work of Max Weber (ftn) The basic premise is that there is a continuum along which religions fall, ranging from the protest-like orientation of sects to the equilibrium maintaining churches". The statement is actually not supported by the cited source (Dawson, Lorne L. (2006). Comprehending Cults: The Sociology of New Religious Movements, here) and I am afraid it is not entirely correct.

The distinction between sects and churches in Weber doesn't have much to do with the opposition between "protest-orientation" and "equilibrium-maintenance" but rather with the oppositions between compulsory organization and ascribed membership (church), and voluntary association (sect); between monopoly of the legitimate use of hierocratic coercion, that is monopoly to administer sacred values (church), and free association of self-appointed "elects" for the pursuit of grace – a group of individuals specially chosen for salvation (sect); and between professional vocation of priesthood, the "separation of charisma from the persona and its linkage with the institution" (church), and the purely personal charismatic authority of the members of the congregation (sect).

Therefore, if unopposed, I intend to modify the article accordingly and provide authoritative sources.

Note that any change here should have consequences also on Sect, where one can read (section "Sociological definitions and descriptions"): "Among the first to define them [sects] were Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch ... In the church-sect typology they are described as newly formed religious groups that form to protest elements of their parent religion (generally a denomination)." The text should rather be the following: "Among the first to define them [sects] were Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch ... In the church-sect typology they are described as voluntary associations of religiously qualified persons.” Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve finished working on the article and here in my sandbox you can find some new contents. Here there’s a draft of the article as it would be if my edits were to be accepted. Basically I’ve almost entirely rewritten and extended the "Church-sect typology" section adding a subsection on Weber and a shorter subsection on Troeltsch. The lead section has also been modified accordingly. I have left untouched the remaining subsections (Church and ecclesia; Denominations; Sects) and sections (Cult typology, etc.), although here there might be some coordination issues to be addressed. Note that I am not a native English speaker. I’m afraid some proofreading and editing are needed, but I am also confident that the proposed text is an improvement, as it contains relevant information on the church-sect theory and corrects the error reported above about Weber's thought. If you could please help me to further improve the text and finalize the editing of the article I’d be most grateful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Sociological_classifications_of_religious_movements"