Talk:Oleg Maltsev (psychologist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edits[edit]

@Bbb23: why did you delete the Infobox template? The article was vandalized by deleting more than half of it. It was claimed sources were not authoritative but in fact they included first, an entry in World Religions and Spirituality Project, published by Virginia Commonwealth University and widely regarded as the leading academic encyclopedia in the field of spiritual movements, and second, articles from The Journal of CESNUR, a Journal where leading scholars in the field of new religious movements publish regularly. The claim that the Journal is associated with Maltsev is false. Apart from that specific issue devoted to the movement he founded, he was never even mentioned in dozens of articles there Aidayoung (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. Suppressing references to the WRSP is more than bizarre. It would be idiotic to not use these academic references. Same for the Journal of CESNUR. There are not so many academic references available on the topic of new religious and spiritual movements, so when we have some in good sources like here, we should keep them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le luxembourgeois (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonable editors can disagree over how to deal with fringe sources, but this obviously isn't WP:VANDALISM by any stretch of the imagination. CESNUR, as far as I can tell, is a fringe open access journal that publishes enthusiastic defenses of new religious movements like the one Maltzev runs. It's a pretty questionable source here. Nblund talk 23:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the quotes on my original article came from an entry in WRSP, the World Religions and Spirituality Project. The article is at https://wrldrels.org/2018/05/19/applied-sciences-association/. WRSP entries are peer-reviewed, the encyclopedia is published by Virginia Commonwealth University and is edited by David G. Bromley, a well-known authority in the field. It has published hundred of high-quality entries. See https://wrldrels.org/about-us/. The Journal of CESNUR started publication in 2017, which is the reason why it does not appear yet in academic indexes where indexing require two years of publication-but it presumably will. Its board https://cesnur.net/board/ shows that it is certainly not “fringe” in the field of new religious movements. It includes virtually all the most well-known scholars in the field. Articles are by well-known scholars such as J. Gordon Melton, James T. Richardson, etc., and even Italian authors such as PierLuigi Zoccatelli, a professor of sociology at Pontifical Salesian University, or Luigi Berzano, who teaches Sociology at the University of Turin, have their Wikipedia pages in the Italian Wiki, although not in the English ones. All these authors, including Massimo Introvigne, have published dozens of volumes with academic presses including Oxford University Press, Brill, etc. My honest impression is that the user who deleted (not “edited”) a good part of the article disagrees from the approach of the scholars associated with WRSP, CESNUR, etc., which is sympathetic to new religious movements. It is the dominant approach in the academia, although a different minority approach also exists. Simply deleting entire paragraphs that were sourced with quotes from academic publications, although publications the user happens to disagree with, is not appropriate editing in Wikipedia. An academic publication is a publication edited and managed by academics, which is surely true for WRSP and The Journal of CESNUR.Aidayoung (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Bbb23: User Le luxembourgeois, who showed up out of the blue here, is an interesting account, not editing much (only 34 edits in total, almost all of them relating to Scientology and other new religions fraternising with CESNUR), but conveniently showing up whenever Aidayoung needs support on articles about Oleg Maltsev, such as here and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I am interested in religions in general, and including in new religions. Anyone being interested in that topic would know the journal of CESNUR as it regroups some of the best scholars in the topic of new religions and is a very valuable secondary source in many cases. As is WSRP. The problem here is that some people seem to be only suppressing academic sources because they disagree with the content. That is not the Wikipedia way (note that I have many more hundreds of contributions in the French wikipedia). If you know academic sources which contradict wrsp or the JoC, mention them in the article, but don’t just delete all (which is vandalism, whatever you call it). Le luxembourgeois (talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're totally mistaken if you believe that everything written by an academic automagically becomes reliable, and the absolute truth. Massimo Introvigne's article on WSRP, which was the main source used here, presents itself as an article about the Applied Sciences Foundation, but is very far from what you would expect from a scholar since it's nothing but a pure promo piece about his friend Oleg Maltsev, plugging Maltsev's books, law firm, websites etc, and uncritically presenting everything said by Maltsev as being the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And that is why it isn't seen as a reliable source here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again the point is not how you evaluate the article. It is where it has been published. World Religions and Spirituality Project is an online encyclopedia (a) published by a leading university; (b) peer-reviewed; and (c) edited by David G. Bromley, a leading scholar of religions. Why your personal revision of the article should be more authoritative than the one by the publisher and editor of WRSP? You have a perfect right to criticize a book published, say, by Oxford University Press. But you cannot cancel references from Wikipedia claiming it is not a source.Aidayoung (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WRSP doesn't have a .edu address. Its "about us" page says that it was established at VCU, but I don't see a lot to indicate that VCU is the publisher or really even connected except through Bromley himself. I also don't see any evidence that it is subject to anything resembling a blind peer-review process. Their website says authorship is "by invitation", and they appear to all be closely linked to CESNUR. I realize that this is a specialized field, but where are the publications about Maltsev in generalist journals of sociology, anthropology or religious studies? Nblund talk 15:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Nope. WSRP isn't an "online encyclopaedia published by a leading university", as you claim, it's a project that was established at Virginia Commonwealth University, not by Virginia Commonwealth University, and there's no mention what so ever about the articles on it being peer reviewed (check for yourself). And you're totally wrong when you in effect claim that the only thing that matters is where an article has been published, not who wrote it, what the article says or what sources were used. Please compare the references at the bottom of this article there with the references at the bottom of the promo piece for Maltsev, the first one provides a long list of on-topic published sources from a considerable number of different writers/scholars, while the references list in Introvigne's article is almost exclusively made up of books by Maltsev himself that have absolutely nothing to do with "World Religions and Spirituality" (which is what I was referring to when I wote that the article plugs Maltsev's books...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, somebody is obsessed with CESNUR here. WRSP articles are authored by several hundred different authors, most of them not showing up anywhere in CESNUR’s Web site and activities. Some have even an anti-cult approach see e.g. https://wrldrels.org/2019/09/20/lev-tahor/ . You do not seem very familiar with how scholarly articles are written. If one writes about a group that has been in existence for more than a hundred years, such as the Assemblies of God, you of course quote from the large existing literature on the subject. If somebody writes about a new group, she would have been taught in college that she should rely on primary sources. Maltsev’s ideas should be reconstructed from Maltsev’s writings. Indeed, it would be academically improper not to do so. Again, the question is why we should rely on your authority to cancel references to an article published “at” a leading university, under the editorship of one of the most famous scholar of new religious movements in the world such as David G. Bromley and, as the “about” page explains, funded by the same university. On other entries on Wikipedia you include articles from obscure daily newspapers. Why on green earth WRSP should be less authoritative than them?Aidayoung (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I am familiar with how "scholarly articles are written", probably more familiar with it than you are, and this discussion isn't about CESNUR, it's about whether Massimo Introvigne's promo piece on Maltsev, that he uploaded to WSRP, is a reliable source for what it was used for here, that is support virtually everything in the article about Maltsev, and the answer to that question is no. Which is why it was removed (by a tenured professor, in case you intend to question their ability to evaluate academic papers too...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why the whole session on mysticism, i.e. on the very ideas that make Maltsev a “cultist” in the eyes of his critics, has been brutally deleted. The user says it was published in “Maltsev’s own journal.” It is obviously not so, but even if it was so how are we supposed to reconstruct Maltsev’s ideas on religion if not by referring to his own writings and lectures?Aidayoung (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nomal procedure would be to wait until someone else (and not his friend...) writes about Maltsev's ideas on religion, and then use that as source. Given the total absence of reliable independent sources about Maltsev he should in fact not have an article here, because of not being notable enough for having an article... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s a tenured Professor it’s even worse - professors hate each others but Wikipedia is not the place for their petty vendettas. Anti-cultists and “cult apologists” obviously regard each other’s work as unacceptable but I believe Wikipedia should fairly represent both points of view. Claiming that Massimo Introvigne who has had a book published by Oxford University Press is not a well-known scholar of new religious movements seems ludicrous. He may be controversial for his ideas but so are most scholars in this highly contentious field Aidayoung (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know if it's a case of you being totally out of your depth, or you deliberately trying to switch subjects in an attempt to confuse people (which doesn't work with me...), but we're not discussing Introvigne's academic merits, we're discussing one single article he's written, and whether that single article can be used as a source for what it was used for. And you've been given the answer to that question multiple times now, with a detailed explanation for why not. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The detailed explanation is “because I say so.” Why should you be accepted as an authority on academic articles is unclear. Once they exist, they can be quoted in Wikipedia, irrespective of whether you like them or not.Aidayoung (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • a) The reason you were given wasn't "because I say so", and b) it wasn't me who pruned the article, but I do support it. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidayoung: multiple editors have raised questions about the use of this source. If the information is truly essential, then we should be able to find better sourcing for it elsewhere. If we can't, then it isn't really WP:DUE for inclusion even if we think that CESNUR/WRSP are reliable. Nblund talk 20:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe the problem arises when a movement is new and starts being studied. Indeed these sources both specialize and are known among scholars of new religious movements for producing the first studies ever of new movements. When a group starts operating, all sources are primary and consist of its own literature only. Then, slowly, scholars start taking notice. Wikipedia does not only include entries on older, established spiritual movements or figures but also on new ones (sometimes as stubs). Covering them as well is a service to the Wikipedia community. I return again to the example of the section “Mysticism.” It fairly represented Maltsev’ ideas on religion, using the only available sources. Since Maltsev’s ideas on religion are at the heart of what he is known, or controversial, for, deleting the whole section IMHO does not render a good service to the Wikipedia community Aidayoung (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook or LinkedIn, and there is no God-given right for anyone to have an article about themself here. We go by what WP:Notability, WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability say, and do not lower the threshold, and accept whatever sources there are, if no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject exists. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. Creating entries based entirely on questionable sources really does a disservice to Wikipedia. If readers want to read about understudied new religious movements, they should read CESNUR or the WSRP. Wikipedia's summary coverage shouldn't be expected to offer comparable depth. I'm not entirely sure that Maltsev really meets WP:NACADEMIC, but if we do have an entry, it needs to be limited to basic facts covered by independent sources. Nblund talk 20:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I used when creating the article are “independent” in the sense that they are not associated with Maltsev. CESNUR is well-known for being sympathetic to groups other label as “cults,” but so are many if not most prominent scholars in the field of new religious movements. This does not make it an “associate” of Maltsev. Aidayoung (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless: if the information is notable enough to warrant inclusion, then it should be possible to find higher quality sources. Please indent your responses per WP:THREAD Nblund talk 23:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Hey. Could you explain the reasons for removing the text fragment from the article? I wrote it based on authoritative and independent sources. You saw my edit as a blatant promotion. Tell me what you see as the promotion and I will remove it. The sources that I used are authoritative and independent. For example, National Geographic. I apologize for my dynamic IP 94.191.146.186 (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feoffer why did you delete Reliable sources? Among the remote sources is the Ring Magazine and Sports Illustrated. This is very similar to what was done with this article in the first and second nominations for deletion.124Sanroque (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to improve the article. I have selected several sources for the preparation of the text.

  1. http://www.palermotoday.it/eventi/cultura/simposio-scientifico-oleg-maltsev-30-settembre-2019.html,
  2. https://interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/607346.html,
  3. https://www.lavocedinewyork.com/en/people/2018/04/03/visiting-calabria-do-all-democracies-have-a-mafia/,
  4. https://worldofmartialarts.pro/archives/2134

In my opinion, these are authoritative sources. Are there any reasons to consider any of these sources unreliable? 124Sanroque (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another source found. It can be used to confirm biographical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124Sanroque (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm the availability of books, i can take a source from Google Books.124Sanroque (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Template was for some reason deleted. Nobody mind if I restore it, for the better view of the article?124Sanroque (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CV[edit]

My edits are all based on independent sources. Thomas.W was probably mistaken and inattentively went through the material which was removed. I would like to hear a more detailed argument for canceling my edits.124Sanroque (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @124Sanroque: Being sourced is, per Wikipedia's rules, not by itself reason enough to including anything here, so being independently sourced is totally irrelevant if the material added isn't fit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. And the material you added (and I removed) is not fit for inclusion here since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place for adding detailed information about just about everything Maltsev has done, and does, including trips he has made, such material belongs on Maltsev's own website, not here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have supplemented the article in accordance with the recommendations of WP:BLP. Biographical data is verified WP:VER by WP:RS. While supplementing an article, I adhered to WP:NPOV and I avoided references to primary or affiliated sources according to WP:NOR.
The profile for linkidin looks different, you may reassure yourself by registering there.
What do you think was wrong with additions from publications like https://jewishreview.co.il or https://nyfights.com ? 124Sanroque (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read my post above again. It doesn't matter how well sourced material is if it isn't fit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. It's an article in an encyclopaedia about a subject who is just barely notable enough to have an article here, not Maltsev's own website. You can add whatever trivia you want there, but not here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite an experienced participant, maybe you see something that I did not notice. I am a beginner, but before writing, I carefully read the rules and recommendations. Maybe I didn’t notice something. But I couldn’t find there that notability material from independent secondary sources cannot be added to the encyclopedic article. Maybe you can help me by suggesting the appropriate rule?124Sanroque (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oleg_Maltsev_(psychologist)&oldid=1218170598"