Talk:Academic study of new religious movements

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Academic study of new religious movements article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 2 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Academic study of new religious movements. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to the improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Academic study of new religious movements at the Reference desk.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 2, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
January 27, 2008	Articles for deletion	Kept

Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia'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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. 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.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scientology Low‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The list

The list should be arranged alphabetically by person's last name as a default because it is the first column. It looks like the list started out by being sorted by "field of study" (why?), but then newer entries were added near the bottom. Sure, you can sort the list, but it's more natural for a reader to simply start reading the list.

Clicking to sort the list alphabetically highlighted to me that many newer entries had been added without using {{sortname}}, which I fixed, but I think some of the newer entries (see redlinks) may not qualify per the inclusion criteria as noted. However, I was unsure what sort of "tagging" needed to be done, hence this talk page note. Someone with more expertise than me in this subject should review those newer entries against inclusion criteria.

If, however, someone also thinks the list should be initially sorted alphabetically, that is a task I can perform. Just tag me and I'll do it. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list should be sorted by last name instead of field of study. 23impartial (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did it. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ones who are redlinks but notable (off the top of my head looking at the red links, Zeller is definitely notable) can stay, I would say. Most academics will pass on NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC, if they do pass. I can check later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially if there are enough reliable sources supporting their notability. 23impartial (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]