Talk:Massimo Introvigne

Primary self-published source

In the recently added sentence beginning "At the regional elections of 2010 in his home region of Piedmont [..]" the inline EL given as a cite is www.alleanzapercota.org, which is registered to Massimo Introvigne. AndroidCat (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Gallagher quote in the lead

I checked the quote in the lead: American scholar Eugene V. Gallagher describes CESNUR as "a research organization focused on new and minority religions." (Eugene V. Gallagher, "'Cult Wars' in the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries," in Eugene V. Gallagher, ed., Cult Wars in Historical Perspectives: New And Minority Religions, London and New York: Routledge, 2017, 2.) The full quote is "Massimo Introvigne charts the development of the Center for the Study of New Religions (CESNUR) as a research organization focused on new and minority religions." JimRenge (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. The relevant page of the book is readable on Google Books. From context this isn't a quote from Gallagher, it is instead Gallagher explaining how Introvigne himself describes CESNUR. Attributing this to Gallagher is not appropriate in any part of the article, especially not the lead. Pending further discussion, I have removed the line. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Introvigne contributed to the book edited by Gallagher but, as it is clear from the context, the further comments are by Gallagher himself.Aidayoung (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Michael Ashcraft's book

Obviously Ashcraft's book is a relevant source. It has been reviewed inter alia by Carole Cusack from University of Sydney as "highly recommended to all interested in the history of academic study of religion and in new religions in particular. It is warmly commended as an excellent work." See . Ashcraft is a professor at Truman State University, see , and his book is published by Routledge, a specialized publisher. It discusses Introvigne in even more laudatory terms, that I could have included. I limiter myself to quoting a cool assessment. Aidayoung (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This bland, cherry picked filler doesn't improve the article, and only serves to pad-out an already bloated and obviously promotional article. Citing a positive general review of a source demonstrates a very, very poor understanding of Wikipedia and due weight. With all sources, context matters. Do not ignore context. Grayfell (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, context matter. The context is the only academic book on the history of the study of new religious movements, written by a credentialed academic and published by an academic press. In the book, Ashcraft discusses the role of CESNUR and Introvigne in the history of NRM studies and cult controversies. Why Kent and even old articles by newspapers should be RS and Ashcraft dismissed?Aidayoung (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

My patience for these obvious games has warn pretty thin. This is a loaded and misleading argument. Your edit was textbook false balance. You have prioritized a cherry-picked quote from W. Michael Ashcraft and placed that before and in contrast to a different assessment, which you editorialize as "another academic with a more critical approach to cults" referring to Stephen A. Kent. This ham-handed editorializing and puffery is not appropriate. I am not interested in meeting you halfway between good-editing and promotion and PR. The goal is always good editing, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for "laudatory" filler. Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Note that Aidayoung has been blocked from English Wikipedia for tendentious editing and sock puppetry. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Legal career

I agree that autobiographical sources are not RS. I quoted an article by La Repubblica and the Web site of the World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations agency, to confirm that Introvigne worked for the law firm Jacobacci e Associati and his education. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Francis Effect

I mentioned (as shortly as possible) the 2013 research on the Francis effect, as it was mentioned among others by The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The Times of London, and discussed in a book by Andrea Tornielli, the current editorial director of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communication. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The raw quantity of sources is not sufficient, because all sources are judged in context. This is not a directory of every single thing this person has done. A study with a small, opaquely-selected sample size proves nothing and is not significant merely because it exists. Stop attempting to lard the article with promotional tid-bits. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I defer to your opinion as a more experienced editor, although I included the research not merely because it existed but because it was mentioned by a plurality of mainline international media, which obviously regarded it as significant. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

..among the world's leading scholars of new religious movement

I wonder what it means if some Italian sociologist claims he is "one of the Italian sociologists of religion most well-known abroad, and among the world's leading scholars of new religious movements" ? When claiming international impact international sources would be better. Also the link to Cipriani links to the Italian version although an English version apparently exists as well Richiez (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed the wikilink. It was not clear to me why either of the laudatory but uninformative quotes belonged in the lead. I have moved them further down in the article pending additional discussion. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

“Founded” CESNUR

The only source offered was a newspaper article. I have left it, as it is otherwise interesting, but it incorrectly reported that Introvigne was “the” founder of CESNUR and that it was founded in Turin, while the two academic sources I added (which pay specific attention to CESNUR) mention it was founded in Foggia by three people, so “co-founder” seems more accurate. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

New Religious Movements

I tried to put some order in the paragraph, which looked somewhat garbled, without eliminating any of the information and criticism other editors had included, by putting first what Introvigne’s positions are in the cult controversy, followed by criticism. Renard’s quote was incongruously in the text rather than in the references. As per Ortega’s interesting articles, CESNUR is an organization and cannot be an "apologist journal." In fact, Ortega referred to The Journal of CESNUR, which is indeed a Journal, criticizing specifically four articles on Scientology. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The article was already a hot mess. Your efforts strongly appear to be a continuation of the article's previous WP:AUTOBIO problems. If you intend to continue editing this article, you will need to completely realign your style to be more neutral and less obsequiously flattering. The more you edit in this way, the less plausible it is that you do not have a conflict of interest. Grayfell (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I was actually following your suggestion to make the changes by installments and discuss on the talk page. With your permission, I will include again the correction of the date of the French report on cults], which is 1995 rather than 1997, and the fact that Ortega could only have called "an apologist journal" (as it did) The Journal of CESNUR (a journal) rather than CESNUR (an association). Btw, as you certainly realized, some of the stuff you deleted had not been added by me. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

PS Just for my future guidance, can you explain what was inappropriate in the sentence: "Introvigne co-authored with American scholars Dick Anthony, J. Gordon Melton and James T. Richardson books and articles criticizing the theory of brainwashing and the anti-cult movement."? I believed the statement, when referenced as it was, to be merely factual. Accidental Sociologist (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

OSCE

I have included some media (SIR is the news wire of the Italian Catholic Bishops, CathoBel the corresponding publication for Belgian Catholic Bishops, La Croix the main French Catholic newspaper), but I have left the previous references. They are not “press releases” but scholarly articles parts of books published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, plus one U.S. official report. There are several other sources about Introvigne at the OSCE but these are perhaps enough.Accidental Sociologist (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. WP:5P1:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. Based on the quality of your contributions, I would recommend you propose changes on talk in future and let vested editors incorporate those that have merit. Feoffer (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

New paragraph

@PARAKANYAA hello there, can you please point the "whole uncited sections" you deleted ?

1// On several occasions, Introvigne has defended the Catholic Church following the emergence of the issue of sexual abuse cases. In April 2010, the catholic newspaper L'Avvenire published an essay where the sociologist compared the way the Church was singled out to a Nazi campaign led in 1937 by J. Goebbels to discredit the Catholic Church. A month earlier, M. Introvigne had claimed that the pedophilia scandal in the Church was attributable to the cultural and sexual revolution of the 1960s.

This is sourced, it can be quoted if needed.

2//In a 2010 book, Preti pedofili - La vergogna, il dolore e la verità sull'attacco a Benedetto, Massimo Introvigne highlights the low number of defendants, writing that only 0.9% of priests are convicted by the courts, a figure far lower than the reality in many countries.

okay this needs a quote.

SSID559 (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

You cannot add uncited material to BLPs, and can cite very information from Introvigne himself in this article, except for very basic, uncontroversial life details per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Unless an outside source has commented on this we cannot include it. Multiple paragraphs you added were completely unsourced, or conducting WP:OR from improper/unreliable primary sources, e.g. the whole Catholic section. Read WP:BLP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, well I added only one paragraph, not "multiple" ones, and I just tried to enrich it with two reliable sources, please take a look. SSID559 (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, these are still huge BLP problems. You cannot cherry pick from someone's own writings to paint a picture no secondary source does. We cannot cite Introvigne to criticize him. We also cannot have an entire section cited to just his own words. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I did not cherry pick in MI's own writings to paint any picture, I quoted and linked to an article that provides a new and interesting perspective. Instead of deleting this new paragraph with new informations, why don't you help me find good secondary sources about it ? Or perhaps you could be a little patient and give me time to expand on this paragraph? SSID559 (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes you did, because this has never been covered by a secondary source, and both sources you cited (after introducing it unsourced!) were written by Introvigne. Secondary sources do not exist for this. Accusing someone of defending child molestation without secondary sources characterizing it that way, and the primary sources do not characterize it that way, is obviously a BLP violation and per our blp policies must be removed immediately. That it is "interesting" is not a defense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Tony Ortega and the Underground Bunker

Ortega is an established subject-matter expert whose work on Scientology has been published by reliable, independent publications, but WP:SPS clearly states "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I noticed this but I was ambivalent about it since what we were citing it for was not actually about him, but about the journal; Ortega made several comments on him in the same article that we did not include. But this is in a BLP article, so... unsure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the policy is follows:

If the work has its own article, that article does not have to follow BLP rules, but anything in the article that is specifically about any living person does. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts" -- WP:BLP

If a living person creates a work, a section of their biography about that work has to follow BLP rules. Everything in a BLP is subject to BLP rules. Note: I could not find any policy that says exactly that, but I think it is implied by our use of the phrase "Biographies of Living Persons Policy" instead of "Information About Living Persons Policy".

I am not the best person to ask about Wikipedia's policies. I am a high functioning autistic, sometimes miss subtleties, and tend to be overly literal. If anyone thinks I got the above wrong, I will be happy to get an official ruling. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

See, the second part is what I am not sure about. I could see how someone would come to that interpretation, and I certainly wouldn't add such content myself, but if the content is not actually saying anything about the person directly I do not actually think it qualifies from a direct reading of WP:BLP... though, of course with BLP you would have to be careful in other ways that may discourage adding such content. In seeing other people edit, I have seen it go both ways. I get why you removed it though I just wanted to note this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

In the context of religious studies, describing the journal as apologetic seemed relatively without controversy -- especially given the far-stronger critique of "cult apologist" is well-cited. Feoffer (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, the issue is BLPSPS. The issue is not the specific thing he said but it is without dispute that Ortega is a self published source and policy is no self-published sources on BLPs, ever, for any reason, per WP:BLPSPS. Outside of WP:ABOUTSELF there are no exceptions. I personally never removed it because I considered it to be about the journal, not him, so it is less clear if that applies, but I could see an argument that it does. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Massimo Introvigne --Guy Macon (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Please note that WP:BLPSPS does not say "no self-published sources on BLPs, ever, for any reason". It says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person." The sentence in question is "Journalist and Scientology-critic Tony Ortega penned a series of 2018/19 articles criticizing The Journal of CESNUR as an unreliable "apologist journal", which is a use in a BLP but aguably is not material about a living person. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

See, my interpretation of "sources of material about a living person" would include material on their articles; the article is material about them, whether the text is directly about them or not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

CESNUR is not an individual person, so this is a WP:BLPGROUP situation. Some info about CESNUR is important context for this article abut Introvigne. If we cannot properly explain at least a bit about CESNUR here, than this article becomes less neutral.

A better source would make this issue go away. Last I looked, neutral sources about CESNUR were relatively scarce, but that was a while ago. Grayfell (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

We are still using it as a "source of material about a living person", though. If the sources don't say it, then they don't, I don't see how it is a neutrality issue to not be able to quote from a blog. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I get that, and I've been ambivalent about citing Ortega for years, but unfortunately I don't think this is a clear-cut argument. The source is 'about' a group of living people in the most literal sense, but beyond that I'm still not sold that this is a hard line that cannot be crossed. This is, as WP:BLPGROUP says, "complex", but I don't think we want to paint ourselves into a corner by excluding sources solely because they are about organizations. Not that this is setting a lasting precedent or anything, but it's worth thinking about. Grayfell (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The argument I see is not to exclude them because it's an organization but because anything on this page is "material about a living person" per BLPSPS.

I mean, I'm ambivalent, which is why I never removed it, but now that someone else has, I think it's worth discussing, though I don't see an issue with citing Ortega outside of BLPs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

A better source would make this issue go away. That's the solution right there! Introvigne has discussed Ortega's critique in journal articles. Feoffer (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

1) Is that a better source, though?

2) Do you have access to Equinox journals? If so, jealous. My inability to cite them has annoyed me several times. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Good news: You also have access! See https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/.

And it may not be more "neutral", but it's certainly not self-published by Ortega. Feoffer (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Feoffer Perhaps, though we will see how this goes...

Does it show Equinox for you? I don't see it. Or is it under a different resource? PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Implicit Religion is available under EBSCO. Feoffer (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Ohhhh, thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

A better source would not make this issue go away. We still would not know what the rules are or how to apply them. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I should @NotBartEhrman: in the convo. Can oyu explain in more detail your recent concerns. Feoffer

(talk) 13:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The concern is that we have two well meaning editors with a disagreement about BLP policy. One thinks the rule is "no self-published sources on any biography of a living person page, ever, for any reason". The other thinks the rule is "if a self-published source is allowed on other pages (subject-matter experts) they are allowed on a biography of a living person page, but only to support statements about organizations, places, events, etc. -- never statements about any living person". So far, no policy has been quoted that says which view is correct. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, thank you for kindly tagging me and my apologies for not following the move from WP:RSN to here.

I am ok with citing Ortega's raw statement with citation to Implicit Religion. Introvigne himself has done so, so the weight is demonstrated. However, in the context of the Implicit Religion article, Introvigne is citing Ortega as a rabid anti-cult attack dog in order to impugn Kent's philosophical position (which is rather unfair, I think). Introvigne is not arguing that Ortega's blog is making a fair evaluation of CESNUR or himself.

We do not need to agree with the overall argument Introvigne is making in the Implicit Religion article (besides the COI, Introvigne's argument just doesn't read well), but The Underground Bunker, a blog without any institutional support, is a ludicrously poor source for evaluating the worthiness of a peer-reviewed academic journal, especially in comparison to the two scholars who Introvigne balances it against. To me, using a blog to evaluate an entire academic journal within Introvigne's article is an implicit character assassination on Introvigne himself. Per my earlier statement WP:RSN, my intent was to remove it repeatedly as an obvious WP:BLPSPS. I see that you are adding nuance to the idea of BLP here, so I will not do that, but nothing in this discussion has changed my basic belief that there is nothing to be gained by citing The Underground Bunker directly.

I do think the balance of putting these three names against each other is a good one. It shows a variety of viewpoints and is appropriate weight for Introvigne's bio. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on that. NotBartEhrman (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Re the recent edit warring, WP:BLP says "must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". There is a concern about whether this is allowed by BLP policy (note: I think that it is allowed but cannot quote any policy saying exactly that) so it stays out until the concern is resolved. There exists no "but the suspected BLP violation has been there a long time!" exception to the policy. Also. WP:3RRNO says "The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: ...Removing contentious material that is ... poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." (I have reported this disagreement to the BLP noticeboard). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

We have a few policy issues actually going on here, one is BLP and the other is OR. Per OR we should only be adding content directly related to the topic of the article. The topic of the article is a living person, so saying it's allowed because we aren't talking about a living person is basically admitting that we are violating WP: OR. This is especially true since we also have an article on CESNUR, and we should have criticisms about that organization that are not specific to the living person over there. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

While CESNUR is a non-profit organization and articles in its journals are reviewed by a large community of scholars, Introvigne de facto determines CESNUR's organizational values and is the editor-in-chief of the journal, so I understand why some editors want to include third-party evaluations of it here. If nothing else, CESNUR is a significant part of his legacy. Confining the evaluation to the CESNUR article is also a legitimate option, considering how contentious this material is. NotBartEhrman (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi NBE, as I said before, sorry for not communicating more with you earlier.

using a blog to evaluate an entire academic journal within Introvigne's article is an implicit character assassination on Introvigne himself

It's not "a blog" -- Ortega is a journalist, not a blogger. Extensive consensus holds that he is a subject matter expert on New Religious Movements and a RS as to his own opinions. Reliably-sourced criticism of an author's work is not a BLP violation. I've added the NPOV concern for now, as readers aren't currently getting the full context in the current version.Feoffer (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

If you peruse the Tony Ortega article, you will see that The Underground Bunker is consistently described as a blog. It is also, as I stated, a blog without institutional support. For comparison, The Religious Studies Project is supported by the British Association for the Study of Religions, the North American Association for the Study of Religion, etc. The Underground Bunker is the personal website of Tony Ortega and donations to the blog go to Tony personally (scroll down). NotBartEhrman (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:EXPERTSPS is still SPS, which does not have any exemption from the absolute rule in WP:BLPSPS that "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themselves". I am not disputing his reliability but it is a blog that he writes with no overhead or organization. It is a WP:SPS. That we might not be able to include a specific self-published piece of criticism from a single person is not a neutrality issue; why would it be? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Who founded CESNUR?

Now that we're here, I figure I should ask, because this is annoying me. As is, we say, in this article, he "co-founded" it, but do not say with who. Sources are remarkably inconsistent on who founded CESNUR. Even Introvigne has said different things at different times:

• Some sources say Introvigne, Mayer, and Ernesto Zucchini

• In a 2014 book foreword, Introvigne says he founded it with Barker, Melton, and Mayer

• In a 2017 interview and in a 2016 book, Introvigne says he cofounded it with Mayer, no one else, .

• Other sources indicate it was only Introvigne, though they might just be being brief this source says Introvigne was the founder and he, Mayer, and Casale were its original "officers"

PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I've definitely tried to make sense out of this myself, to no avail. Presumably the group has some original articles of incorporation out there that could resolve it? Absent that, list anyone Introvigne has ever claimed as co-founder? Feoffer (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. My academic search came up blank but the CESNUR website has a talk by Introvigne with extreme detail. To wit:

I approached a friendly Italian Bishop, monsignor Giuseppe Casale (soon to become famous, or notorious, as the most liberal Italian Bishop in matter politics – I did not share his political ideas but this did not prevent us from co-operating), who agreed to contribute some money and to host the new organization in his dioceses (first Vallo della Lucania and then Foggia, where he was transferred in late 1988). With his help, we organized the first CESNUR conference in Vallo della Lucania in 1988. The attendance did not exceed a dozen, and only three person (myself, Mayer and an Italian Roman Catholic priest, Father Ernesto Zucchini) presented papers. Undaunted, we went on and proceeded both to incorporate CESNUR and to call a second conference in Foggia for the same year 1988. In the meantime Mayer had attended several international conferences and, enlisting also the help of Mike Homer, we were able to bring to Foggia – and to CESNUR – the most famous international scholars in the field of new religious movements, Eileen Barker and J. Gordon Melton.

So, by Introvigne's account:

1. First CESNUR conference organized by Introvigne alone, funded by the Catholic Church.
2. First CESNUR conference featured Introvigne, Mayer, and Ernesto Zucchini.
3. CESNUR incorporated thereafter by Introvigne -- perhaps with Mayer and Casale?
4. Second CESNUR conference (first *incorporated* conference) featured Introvigne, Barker, and Melton.

This seems to explain most of the discrepancies between sources. If we wanted to eliminate the contradictions, I think the best, most coherent way to do so would be to find the documents of incorporation. NotBartEhrman (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

See, but right before that, it says this: "Mayer had experienced similar problems in Switzerland in trying to co-operate with the Christian counter-cult community, and shared a dislike of brainwashing theories and anti-cultism. We decided we needed a new organization of our own, and CESNUR, the Center for Studies on New Religions, was born in 1988." so I guess it was him and Mayer who "created" it, before it actually really did anything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that Introvigne changes the meaning of "created" depending on his audience and his whims. I don't think it benefits readers to relate all the different creation stories, and I guess we can't cite the CESNUR website anyway. My preference would be to find the incorporation documents and cite them, but only if that is not WP:OR. NotBartEhrman (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)