Talk:Eric Roux

Promotional content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Grayfell, I don't see that the fact that saying that someone is a religious freedom activist would be peacockry. It's kind of factual. It's even a category. Please compare with examples on WP:PEACOCKery. You'll find modifiers, all of them being superlative, but nothing to do with that kind of category as activist. Then you ask: "Present neutrally and cite reliable, independent sources, not blogs or churnalism", while the sources are mainly two scholar articles on recognized scholar academic peer review journals: The Journal of Cesnur and SAGE. These are definitely valid sources. I agree that some parts could be removed, but you just erased too much, including factual parts based on scholarly sources. --Le luxembourgeois (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The article would need to explain, neutrally and according to due weight, how he is a "freedom activist", religious or otherwise, and this would need to be supported by something much, much better than the flimsy sources currently used here.

Examples of peacockery at that guideline page are precisely that: examples. "Freedom" is also a flattering modifier, and "activist" is flattering, but only minimally informative. More importantly, this flattering-sounding phrase is not directly supported by a reliable source. It was supported by a random blog. This is absolutely not acceptable, per WP:SPS and WP:BLPRS. If you still do not understand how this is also peacockery, then you'll just have to take my word for it. The article doesn't mention CESNUR, but CESNUR is borderline as reliable source. As a journal, it is a walled garden of a small handful of sympathetic intellectuals and semi-anonymous followers writing about their own faith uncritically. Regardless, since this person has contributed to CESNUR, it is not an independent source for information about him. Grayfell (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, "religious freedom" is not a flattering modifier at all, it's a concept very well defined and somebody active in that field is factually a religious freedom activist. Sorry to say that no, I won't just have to take your word for it, that's not how wikipedia works, and your way to say it is definitely patronizing. Then as regards CESNUR, I'm sorry to say that the editorial board of the Journal of CESNUR is not at all made of "sympathetic intellectuals and semi-anonymous followers". Have a look at it and you'll find renowned scholars. And it's peer reviewed and absolutely goes into the category of reliable source. As well as SAGE. Moreover I don't know why you say "since this person has contributed to CESNUR, it is not an independent source for information about him"... The source was an article by a French scholar named Bernadette Rigal-Cellard, quite well known in the field of religious studies. I will not revert your modification again because I don't want to enter into a revert war, but I'll go back to the article later and add back some of the content (maybe with different wording and without name dropping) based on these reliable secondary sources. --Le luxembourgeois (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

If you don't want to edit war, don't edit war. Especially not with obviously unreliable sources and cherry-picked quotes added to flattering effect. Bernadette Rigal-Cellard is quite well-known? In the walled garden of sympathetic comparative religion academics, she is somewhat well known. This garden of "well known" scholars includes Melton and Lewis, who wrote "made to order PR" for religions who needed help with their publicity. Since Rigal-Cellard has co-written a book with Roux, this is at a bare minimum something that should be made clear in any situation where her perspective is presented as factual. These scholars are free to start a website if they want a place to pat each other on the back about how great they are. We are interested in a neutral summary of why they are notable.

Religious freedom is "well defined"? By who? Does that freedom extend to apostates? If someone's opinions are significant, you should be able to find reliable, independent sources explaining why they are significant. If, instead, this is just padding to make an article more bloated and flatter, then this doesn't belong at all.

Since you created this article, and added completely unreliable sources to it to flattering effect, I would remind you that you are obligated to disclose any conflict of interest you may have. If you are compensated to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose this, per WP:PAID. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you have an axe to grind. So, point by point: Whatever is your personal opinion on CESNUR and its academics (and I understand you have a personal bad opinion), the Journal of CESNUR is a peer reviewed academic journal and and valid reliable source per wikipedia rules. Then it does not look that Cellard "co-wrote" any book with Roux. You seem to be confuse: if you refer to one of the books listed in the publications at the end of the article, it's a book with multiple authors, as it is often done in academic publications. In that kind of publication, the publisher contacts several authors and ask them to write an article that will be a chapter in the book. They do not co-write at all, and sometimes they do not know each other at all. So it has no incidence on reliability. Then you omit to speak about SAGE publication... Will you also pretend that SAGE, one of the most important academic publisher, is not reliable source?

Also, please avoid the kind of baseless accusation like adding "completely unreliable sources to it to flattering effect". It looks that you have a real problem with the article for personal reasons, not me. I'm definitely not paid to edit wikipedia :) Cool down. And as regards your remark on religious freedom, actually I don't really understand why you are making it, it's a bit out of the blue. Anyway, definitely religious freedom applies to apostates. For example in UK Human Rights Act article 9 reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief..." Well, not sure it's even relevant to answer to you on this point, but it's done.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The comment on The Journal of CESNUR looks quite strange. Authors include Massimo Introvigne, J. Gordon Melton and James T. Richardson, recognized as the main luminaries in the field of the academic study of new religious movements, plus another dozen of tenured professors, and this in merely two years since the publication started. The Board (https://cesnur.net/board/) looks like a who's who of the most well-known academics in the same field. Aidayoung (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Considering that there are previous sock issues with this topic and these accounts, and I just expressed WP:COI concerns, and your account has not edited in months, could you please explain how you came across this discussion? Grayfell (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This is again bizarre. Unlike you, I have hundreds of editings in the field of new religious movements. Just check. I edit when I have spare time, but it would be difficult to deny I have contributed to Wikipedia with respect to dozens of religious movements. I have an interest in Scientology, hence in Eric Roux. I believe you make a confusion among two different issues: the opinions of scholars and whether or not they are newsworthy. You may dislike e.g. the opinions of Gordon Melton but you cannot deny that he is a tenured professor in a large university and has published some 100 books with academic presses. Same for other scholars here. Whether one is a known scholar does not depend on his or her opinions, with which you have obviously a right to disagree, but on whether he or she is regarded as a well-known scholar by the academic community.Aidayoung (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

You chimed-in on this obscure talk page of an article you have not edited, within minutes of this being raised. You had not edited for months prior to this comment, and haven't edited since. I did check your history, and the majority, perhaps even the vast majority, have been to cite CESNUR, or to defend CESNUR and its personalities, or to expand coverage of CESNUR.

Like you, I also have hundreds of edits related to new religious movements, but it's not necessarily obvious, because I have thousands of edits. You have hundreds of edits related to CESNUR, and almost no edits related to anything else. This makes you functionally a single purpose account. It is simply not plausible that it was a coincidence that you appeared on this talk page after months of inactivity. It should be obvious why this raises concerns over WP:COI and WP:SOCK, and you have not addressed either of those concerns.

You still have not explained how you came across this talk page. Please be aware that sock puppetry and meat puppetry are prohibited in most cases. If there is some public forum where this article is discussed, be mindful of Wikipedia's stance on offsite canvasing. If this was instead a private conversation between the two of you, you do not have to explain further, but be aware that we are interested in fair consensus. Gathering sympathetic allies is not fair, and is not productive.

Please also be aware that behavior on Scientology-related articles is held to higher standards, due to past disruptive behavior. This is explained at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with specific details at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. As background, Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia may also be informative. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge proposal

I propose merging this content into List of Scientology officials and redirect this to List of Scientology officials § Eric Roux, as this article doesn't demonstrate notability and a WP:BEFORE check isn't finding much more than the average Scientology spokesperson.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support proposal, and I’d suggest you can go ahead and WP:BOLDly make the change. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I already tried that in October and someone reverted it.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Grorp: I'm keeping this on my watch list for now, but feel free to revert and ping me if someone looks to recreate this without discussion. It was created by sockpuppet of a user subsequently blocked. Subsequent edits by other users have merely been to remove the rubbish content. To be clear, I am not advocating its deletion, but the only reason it ought not to be deleted now is because you created an appropriate place for it to redirect to. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting... a pro-CESNUR/Introvigne/Westbrook fan, a prior AfD, and a deep rabbit hole about that user and their sock.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

You've made a mistake I believe. The entry was the subject of [discussion] which led to no consensus, and a decision to not delete the page. The merging in that case is a deletion. --VeryHotFriedChicken (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@VeryHotFriedChicken: A 2019 deletion discussion resulting in 'no consensus' is irrelevant. Four months ago a merge was proposed by me and the redirect done by Cambial Yellowing, and you're just now getting around to making an objection? Eric Roux does not rise to the level of notability required by Wikipedia guidelines to rate a standalone article. Read WP:Notability (people). You are welcome to present evidence of notability here on the talk page, or add to the paragraph at Scientology officials#Eric Roux (if appropriate for that article).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm not following the page and just saw it now. I don't think a deletion discussion from 2019 can be considered irrelevant, unless circumstances change, which is not the case here. I am just pointing out the fact that if there has been a discussion and an outcome, it should have prevalence on a personal opinion. I'll dig into it to see if there is evidence of notability, when I will have time. VeryHotFriedChicken (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)