Talk:List of groups referred to as cults/archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Requested move

List of groups referred to as cults → List of cults – "Referred to" is redundant as per WP:CITE policy. (If you cite something, it means someone else "referred" to it as having the property cited.) It's also common sense: We wouldn't ever have a page called "List of groups not referred to as cults", so there's no reason to distinguish this page from it. Finally, this article is full of quality citations. There's no need to hint that citations exist in the article title. For example, we wouldn't title an article "List of fruits referred to as apples". --Davidstrauss 09:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support - For the reasons mentioned above. --Davidstrauss 09:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - that would give a very different list and tedious work --Pjacobi 09:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a different list. "List of cults" + WP:CITE + WP:RS implies "List of groups cited in reliable sources as cults". Explain how that would change the list. --Davidstrauss 18:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Be bold cairoi 15:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to List of groups described as cults (i.e. oppose "List of cults", on grounds of possible libel claims, disclaimer notwithstanding). David Kernow 16:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
1) Wikipedia does not operate off legal threats. If we back down on controversial labels, we'll just be an encyclopedia of weasel words. 2) If a real source has been cited for a statement, "libel" is nearly impossible to prove for that statement. We call plenty of thing "pseudoscience" on here, even though the groups would rather have nothing of it. --Davidstrauss 18:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Why use a potentially controversial name when there's no need to do so?  Regards, David 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It's less wordy and just as accurate. We could rename every Wikipedia article "Article about topic referred to as X", but that would be rather silly. --Davidstrauss 21:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess "just as accurate" is the moot point. Thanks for your thoughts, David Kernow 23:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per David Kernow, though I don't know if "described as" is going to be any more satisfactory than "alleged" or "referred to as" to people who really just want any inkling of a POV that is unflattering to them to be suppressed. That's the other reason that I oppose: changing the title to suggest that Wikipedia endorses the beliefs therein would just be used as an excuse for said people to remove the completely true fact that such-and-such is alleged pretty much all over the world to be a cult because 'Well, it isn't proved that this is a cult and therefore this can't go in List of cults.' -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm no lawyer, but I'd hope presenting a list of groups described as cults, i.e. a list merely reporting descriptions given elsewhere, is a safe but effective option. Regards, David Kernow 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but "Tom Cruise described as gay" wouldn't be any less libelous of a headline than "Tom Cruise is gay". I'm also tired of hearing about the "safe" legal option here. We're not violating copyrights, patents, or trademarks here. We're just making a controversial (and sourced) statement. --Davidstrauss 18:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "We're just making a controversial (and sourced) statement." Please consider Will's point immediately below (NPOV); also Soapbox and WP:POINT. Thanks, David Kernow 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We've used a variety of adjectives - it was "list of purported cults" for a long while. "Referred to as" is a bit wordy, but it's NPOV and that's what is important. -Will Beback 20:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (I would not oppose moving it to "List of groups described as cults", which seems to mean the same thing, though I don't see any pressing need for the move. -Will Beback 23:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

Discussion

Add any additional comments
This article tells somethings about the groups and those referring to them as cult. The usage of the designator "cult" is highly controversial and ambiguous. The meaning used here, isn't even consistent with the article cult. The full name of the article would better be List of groups referred to as cults by sources not meeting the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. --Pjacobi 09:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems like you're only opposing the move because it makes this article slightly less repugnant and thus gets in the way of your agenda to have it deleted, which has failed. Many of the sources here clearly meet WP:RS guidelines. Furthermore, the designation of many topics is controversial. Such controversy doesn't merit sticking "referred to" in the title against all conventions, guidelines, and policy. --Davidstrauss 09:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Note: Pjacobi changed his vote and statement of reason after I submitted the post above. He did not update his signature timestamp. --Davidstrauss 18:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, let's try to bring this argument forward by an analogy: What about a List of politicians referred to as moron. What to do:
  1. Keep and busily add cases
  2. Move to Moron politicans
  3. Delete
Pjacobi 12:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Faulty analogy. Moron is no longer a specific descriptor used by professionals; it now exists as nothing but an epithet and a value judgement. Now, I'm aware that many people will claim that "cult", too, now exists as nothing but an epithet and a value judgement. These people are known as "liars", since the existence of numerous cult checklists that enumerate specific factors prove them wrong, and you'll also hear them trying to get away with other lies such as "'cult' is just a derogatory synonym for religion" (notice how none of them can ever be pinned down on how the LaRouche Movement, or est, or the very heatedly non-religious Randian Objectivism get so frequently classified as cults...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Antaeus, always nice to meet someone with firm beliefs. I won't backup on the specific "moron" analogy, but offer another, diferent but related one: List of politicians referred to as completely incompetent. Completely incompotent is an judgement often heard about politicians. Independant of the question whether or not this would be a useful list, it would be another list than Completely incompetent politicians. The threshold of evidence needed would be much high. Likewise here on the cult list. As of now, this is a one drop rule list: fint one citation matching the definition by this article's regulars, and voila: a new entry can be made. If we move to List of cults there would be more sourcing necessary, especially, sources doubting the "cult"-label must be taken into account. And the publications of scholars of theology, sociology and psychology would weight more than press articles. --Pjacobi 16:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Incompetence is still highly subjective. How about "List of Christian fundamentalist politicians"? It's not as easy as a self-label (most politicians don't publically self-label as "fundamentalist"). It would also require citations and criteria. I don't think that's different than what we see here. --Davidstrauss 18:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Another example is pseudoscience. We don't step down from directly calling things "pseudoscience". If we were to make a list, it would be "List of pseudoscientific beliefs", not "List of beliefs referred to as pseudoscientific". --Davidstrauss 18:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Labelling pseudoscience as pseudoscience is much easier, as the requirements for reliable sources in math and natural sciences are more stringent and more explicit. So "describe themselve as scientific" + "no, or only withdrawn or refuted, publications in peer reviewed journals" => pseudosciende. --Pjacobi 19:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Davidstrauss asked: It wouldn't be a different list. "List of cults" + WP:CITE + WP:RS implies "List of groups cited in reliable sources as cults". Explain how that would change the list.
See above. You wouldn't get scholarly consensus, that the Mormons qualify as cult, quite to the contrary. Very mixed results on the Neuapostolische Kirche (due to the recent change of doctrine). Al-Quaeda would be out, not many obervers find "cult" fitting. Society of St. Pius X is even wrong on the current list, etc.
Pjacobi 19:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
1) This article already operates (by global Wikipedia policy and guidelines) on WP:CITE and WP:V, so anything that you say wouldn't be allowed under those shouldn't be in the article now. 2) You don't need scholarly concensus to put something in an article via WP:V. You just need a significant voice to say that idea. (Or if you really want scholarly consensus, then you can still require that. Keeping "referred to" in the title is irrelevant to the standard of consensus for inclusion in this article.) --Davidstrauss 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No this article quite clearly violates WP:V and WP:RS, if read as List of cults: Only voices saying X is a cult are counted, not those saying X is not a cult. And it violates these policies, as it takes newspapers and activists' websites as better sources than academic research.
And add Shia to the list of abstruse entries, which would have to go, when renaming to List of cults.
Pjacobi 19:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That is a total lie about policy. WP:NPOV alone negates what you're saying. You're trying to say that titling the article "List of cults" would require only listing citations that say "X is a cult", which is untrue. In fact, that position has a name, "sympathetic viewpoint". WP:NPOV clearly states that Wikipedia articles can't use sympathetic viewpoints, so "X is a cult" and "X is not a cult" are equally welcome (if cited), no matter what the article is titled. Finally, you somehow think that calling this article "referred to" changes the standard of citaiton and gets this article out of the requirements of WP:V and WP:CITE. It does not. --Davidstrauss 19:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course "X is a cult" and "X is not a cult" are both welcome POVs and must be weighted, but before putting X in List of cults, a reasonable consensus must be found for this judgements. Or would you put X on both List of cults and List of non-cults? --Pjacobi 20:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Removal of Wikipedia from the list

Alexandrov commented Wikipedia out of the list because he said that the sole source placing it there ([1]) because (if I understand the edit summary) the author didn't give arguments corresponding to the wiki's definition of cult. While I think this was well-intentioned, I also think it's a mistake; while I think the author intended more than a bit of journalistic hyperbole, he was in fact quite clearly stating that Wikipedia could be considered a "cult". I think Wikipedia clearly belongs on the list, and if no one has arguments to the contrary, I'll restore it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -Will Beback 22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
yup. Sfacets 23:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Are there any other examples of non-spiritual cults on this list? Unless editting is a spiritual activity for some. Would that mean that such groups as Mary Kay America's Nicest Cult could be included? cairoi 00:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The LaRouche movement is not spiritual. The Synanon movement was not spiritual either. Nor was EST. I'm not aware of "Mary Kay America's Nicest Cult". Can you provide a link? -Will Beback 00:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That's cool. I was just curious. Mary Kay is like Avon. And is often called America's nices Cult. I don't have a reputable reference but I'm sure it could be found. The internet is littered with Mary Kay survivor stories but it's really just a cosmetics pyramid scheme. I'm in for wikipedia being on the list...cairoi 01:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
What about this ref for Mary Kay...http://brandnoise.typepad.com/brand_noise/2005/12/the_cult_of_mar.html? Does it seem resonable? cairoi 04:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No, blogs are not reliable sources for anything. You might have an easier time with Amway. It used to have an entry here back in the days before we required sources, and when each entry had a description. That material was merged back into the artciels about the groups. I believe that Amway has been called a cult and if we find proper sources it should probably be on this list. -Will Beback 05:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed one

Whereas the "referred to as cults" part often gives intersting discussions, this time I'm removing an entry for failing the "group" part:

Tantrism isn't a group.

Pjacobi 10:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Antaneus, please give your argument.
My argument still is: "Tantrism" is no group. It is a wide range of practices, not under any organisational or even informal cover. It is not a group, like Animism, Spiritism, Monotheism isn't a group.
Perhaps you can nail down a specific group referred to in this BBC article, but it must get a more specific name than "Tantrism". Did you read our article Tantra?
Pjacobi 16:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Pjacobi, please show the attention to detail needed to spell my name right. If you can find a more specific name for the subset of Tantrism designated by our fully acceptable source, then suggest it. Even something like changing the entry to "Indian practitioners of Tantrism" might be a viable option. But since no part of our criteria specifies that when we say "groups" we really mean "organizations" removal is not a viable option. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
See cult for some attempts to define what a cult is. If you can't even name the group, then it's not good enough for entry. --Pjacobi 19:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

More candidates for removal

The following entries are not backupped by sources given as valid for this list:

For some groups, the point seems rather clear: Randian Objectivism, Society of St. Pius X.

In other cases, you may just want to expand the list of newspapers you trust.

For groups, which are only on the list due to the listing on http://www.freedomofmind.com, a better source should be found.

Pjacobi 19:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, the point doesn't seem 'rather clear' as to why Randian Objectivism or Society of St. Pius X should be removed. You may have to actually explain your reasoning. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
While editing, you must have seen the links provided, I'll reformat them to make them better visible:
So, for Objectivist philosophy we have one article from The Sceptic and one book by Jeff Walker, not known as a scholar in the field. Anyway, not nearly matching the list of accepted sources for this article.
For Society of St. Pius X, the only source is a private web site.
Pjacobi 19:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Which are you counting as "the field"? The field of Ayn Rand or the field of cults? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

These:

Are all valid. The only source that we disallow is Rick Ross. -Will Beback 20:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you suggest changing:
Inclusion of a group within this list is dependent upon that group being labelled a "cult" or "sect" by one or more of the listed sources.
Inclusion of a group within this list is dependent upon that group being labelled a "cult" or "sect" by one source other than Rick Ross
?
Pjacobi 08:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I'm not sure when the change was made, but allowing all reliable sources was the longterm plan we worked out previously. It's all in the archives, again and again. All reliable sources, meaning newspapers, magazines, major websites, cult experts, scholars, but excluding blogs, forums, one-person websites, etc. Except Rick Ross (because he is so controversial on this topic), but including Hassan, and every other expert and journalist. How many source do you suggest we have? -Will Beback 09:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If we go forward to List of cults, an inclusion of X in this list would be equivalent to the statement "X is cult". Currently the inclusion in this list is equivalent to the statement "There is a Y, stating X is a cult". Do you agree? Do you think both statements are the same? --Pjacobi 09:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that the proper handling of the cases should be delayed (but consider it very unfortunate, that the article contradicts itself until then. But I removed Objectivist philosophy and Society of St. Pius X, as the given sources are neither in the list nor reliable sources per policy. --Pjacobi 16:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Lists of References to Inappropriate uses of Cult

The following information was deleted from an article Listing references to groups as inappropriate to call cults. I think that the it should be merged with this list somehow as the current list provides a one sided viewpoint. cairoi 14:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What do others think?

I think that the description you're giving the group "Lists of References to Inappropriate uses of Cult", is POV. -Will Beback 19:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
What would you call it then? and how or would you accept a merge with this list? cairoi 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the result of the AfD discussion had been "delete", not "merge". -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

header

This list indexes a number of groups that have been referred as to religions once classed as cults.

Some religions, though looked upon as "alternative" at their conception by the mainstream, persist to become established denominations. This creates a situation where some mainstream sources continue to refer to them as cults while others indicate that they should no longer be classed as such.

This list makes no judgement as to whether the groups listed were at any time properly classed as cults or whether they are presently properly classed as established religions. A list of references expressing an opposing view may be found under a List of groups referred to as cults.

Groups

  • The Brethren
  • Eckankar
  • Falun Gong/Falun Dafa
  • The Family, formerly called The Children of God
  • Hare Krishna - ISKCON
  • Neo-Paganism
  • New Age
  • Santeria
  • Satanism
  • Unification Church
  • Vodun (Voodoo)
  • The Way
  • Wicca

Please research fringe group cults that are similar to Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidian, the Jim Jones movement and the Raelians. The list are those openly express their religion and never involved in legal troubles. Are the Unification church called "Moonies" named for a Korean minister in the US? Religion is a touchy subject, full of bias and objection, and this can lead to discrimination of cults not associated with violations of laws, like the FLDS or Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints of Colorado City, Ut.-Ariz., known to still practice polygamy and got into encounters with the US Marshal. + 207.200.116.14 09:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to move

Whoever made the proposal to move this article to List of cults, ought to read the copious earlier dicussions and AfDs. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Odinism and the racial religion

I moved this article from Talk: hate group, although I'm not sure it's still there. This isn't a redundant or useless article, but cults or sects promote white Aryan racism and anti-government activism are worth noting.

In the last 20 years, white supremacists were attracted to a particular kind of pagan religion known as Odinism. The religion originated from tribal myths and theology of the pre-Christian Germanic and Scandinavian tribes, once had a cult devoted to Odin/Wotan, god of war, hate and death.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, German nationalists and rightists experimented with Odinism and entered the National Socialist Party (later known as Nazis) in the 1920's and 30s. Prominent Nazi leaders like Eric Ludenknoff, Julius Christian Rosenberg and the infamous Heinrich Himmler are pagan adherents.

The Nazi-pagan connection reappeared in the 1970's by American practitioners Steven McAllen and David Lane, also a self-claimed neo-Nazi helped create a racially divisive version of the pagan faith by the 1980's.

During the "pagan revival" across Europe from the 1960's to the early 1990's, while most pagan adherents observed a more pacifist, counter-cultural faith, came a development of morbid ultra-violent and fascist-inspired Odinists, mainly centered in Norway.

In 1993, a music genre by the Norwegian rock band Burzum combined gothic, satanic, death and black metals that contained racist (as in tribal, primal or viking themes) and anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anarchist lyrics.

Later that year, thousands of Burzum followers rioted across Scandinavia and burned down churches, police stations and Jewish owned properties, in part to Burzum's anti-social, racial pagan messages. Burzum's lead singer Varg Vikernes was charged and imprisoned in 1994 with brief worldwide attention and he remains in a Norway jail.

European countries guarantee the freedom of religion, but are restrictive of the type of music Burzum produces as racist, criminal, and anti-Christian, as Norway passed laws banned that music genre (the sale of, not private ownership of those recordings).

In the U.S. this racial variety of pagan faiths thrive in the state and federal prisons, as in the Odinic Rite Ministry serves 500 inmates in 10 states. Prison guards are deeply concerned on the activities of Odinists may become hostile with white supremacist prison gangs.

The anti-cult movement affiliated with neo-Nazis and hate groups seem to accepted Odinism and Arianism, a revived early Christian movement of the Roman Empire has declared Jesus Christ not entirely a god, but of man.

Paganism can be a harmless alternative for some persons with deep feelings to nature and pre-modernity of a time before Christianity arrived in Europe, but the particular Odinic Rite is growing and arose from the underground as a new hate group. + 207.200.116.14 09:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivist philosophy

There are two reasosn, to not include Objectivist philosophy:

  1. It is called a cult in a one book. The NYT source given is a book review, not an article about Objectivist philosophy
  2. Cult is a homonym. This lists captures the meaning 7 of RHUD a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader;. In the book and its NYT review, especially considered the phrase "cult of", it is more meaning 2 an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers;.

Pjacobi 07:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To add a bit further, Objectivist philosophy cannot, in and of itself be argued to be a cult. However, the Objectivist movement itself has been described as a cult by certain detractors. I am not familiar with this page (having just discovered it through the link on Talk:Objectivist philosophy, so I will leave it up to other editors whether or not this should be included on this page. iggytalk 08:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, there's separate articles for the philosophy and the movement? Excellent point, Ig, I wasn't aware of that. I've changed the entry so that it points to the article for the movement, not for the philosophy. Whether it should be included -- well, of course you'll hear different opinions on this, but to my mind the only answer that's consistent with Wikipedia's basic principles is that whenever possible, we give the reader the information to make up their own mind. It might be only 'certain detractors' that describe the Objectivist movement as a cult -- but then again, it's certain that any true cult would try to paint anyone revealing them as a cult in exactly such a negative, minimizing light. Thus, we let the reader make up their own mind between the two -- and you have to admit, it's hardly letting the reader make up their own mind to surpress the fact that there's more than one view to choose from. (I don't think Wikipedia's a cult, but I think readers are better-informed if they do know that some people have advanced that very notion.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Dare to comment on the homonym issue? And please note, that Objectivist movement is without any source. --Pjacobi 16:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Dare? Sure. See a need to? Not really; I think the emptiness of your objection is already quite transparent. Without any evidence to support your conclusion you are essentially arguing 'even though Objectivism is in fact called a cult, and in one of the most acceptable sources there is, it didn't really get called a cult (even though it did) and there is no source (even though there is).' -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding "The NYT source given is a book review, not an article about Objectivist philosophy": I am not aware of any part of WP:RS which says we can only use articles directly about the subject as sources. Regarding the homonym issue, having several definitions does not make for homonyms. "Dear", a noun, and "dear", an adjective, are homonyms. "Cult" is one word, though used for different purposes. The only definitions we exclude are cults of personality (covered in a separate article) and cultural phenomena, like "Rocky Horror Picture Show", that have so-called "cult followings" or are "cult movies". We also have a temporal restriction that automatically but indirectly affects which usages we include. -Will Beback 07:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Do understand you correctly, that even "cult" as in RHUD meaning 1 (a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies;) or in Merriam-Webster meaning 1 (formal religious veneration) are "valid" for inclusion in this list. Like, e.g. "cult of Virgin Mary"? This would open new and interesting avenues of expanding this list? --Pjacobi 07:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Except for the "new" part... -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if the cult of Virgin Mary has existed within the last 150 years, and has been referred to as a "cult" within the last 50 years, it could be on the list. -Will Beback 19:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • To add fuel to this fire, the same issue came up at Pseudoreligion earlier today when a self-proclaimed Objectivist deleted content listing his beliefs as a pseudoreligion. I've provided an extensive list of sources In the discussion at Talk:Pseudoreligion#Ayn Rand? which refer to Objectivism/Randianism as a cult/religion. These would be likewise applicable here. I note that the same user has been on a POV-warpath, removing material from articles across Wikipedia that mention Objectivism.--LeflymanTalk 00:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Silliness

Does anybody receive awards for getting the list longer? I've just noticed and applaud the removal of Shia and Sunni. The source given was http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/untold_stories/asian/shia_community.shtml -- now look at the bottom of that page: This article is user-generated content (ie external contribution) expressing a personal opinion, not the views of BBC Gloucestershire.

Perhaps this list should be renamed to Lists of not-quite-facts found by busy Googling.

Pjacobi 08:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, and I didn't even notice that... iggytalk 09:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that those were odd additions. Hmm, where did they come from? -Will Beback 09:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, here we are.[7]. Yes, I think that someone was trying to make the list longer. -Will Beback 09:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't notice that either!! And to think I spent a whole day arguing when I could have simply pointed that out. Thank-you Pjacobi.
Khalid 18:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


Psychology

The title "Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-worship" would mean that the author is asserting that Psychology is a religion and more than that it is a client-cult which promotes the worship of the self. cairoi 02:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to say from the title alone. This book excerpt, admittedly from a dubious source which popped up on Google, [8], indicates that the worship of self is the basis of the religiom that he calls "selfism". If we're going to add it, that would seem to be the correct name. -Will Beback 02:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a dubious source. The head of Psychology at NYU. And you can tell from the title. You need to review the use of the colon. cairoi 14:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Have you read the excerpt? "Selfism" appears to be the religion he is referring to. -Will Beback 18:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
New link. Read on...cairoi 21:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • From the description and commentray of the preceding chapter, it is no doubt becoming clear that self-theory is a widely-popular, secular and humanistic cult or "religion", not a branch of science.[9]
  • In short, humanistic selfism is not scinece but a popular secular substitute religion, which has nourished and spread today's widespread cult of self-worship.[10]
"Cult of self-worship", "cult of self-theory", or "cult of selfism" seem to be the terms which best capture the author's message. -Will Beback 01:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
"I shall begin by documenting the strong religious nature of much of today's psychology. This chapter presents, in brief form, the relevant theoretical positions of Carl Jung -- the originator of much self-psychology..." (paragraph 1)
"Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship" (Title)
The author is plainly calling the Modern Jungian Psychology of the Self religious and referring to it as a cult. Leaving out the word psychology takes the teeth out of what the author is saying. There is no group running around devoted to what they call the cult of self-worship -- that could be anyone, anywhere -- but there are devotees to Modern Jungian Psychology who do worship the self according to this author. cairoi 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
If there are reputable sources that confirm the author's view then we may consider this. Otherwise it is a self-declared definition. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's how this article works. It only collects references not definitions. All of the other references on this list could then be described a self declared assertions as well. cairoi 21:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Teaism

Is this a joke? What identifiable group practices the cult of teaism? -Will Beback 22:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I work with a guy who is a devotee of the Chinese Tea Ceremony and grew up in an area with a large Japanese population where the tea ceremony was often performed in our school. Teaism is a spiritual pursuit which involves ritual and meditation with millions of devotees around the world with a well developed genre of poetry and scripture. It is not cohersive or theistic but it is referred to as a cult. Not a Joke. cairoi 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
In case you weren't able to view the quote Kakuzo Okakura's Book of Tea
I. The cup of humanity
Tea began as a mdicine and grew into a beverage. In China, in the eighth century, it entered the realm of poetry as one of the polite amusements. The fifteenth centrue saw Japan enoble it into a religion of aestheticism, --Teaism. Teaism is a cult founded on the adoration of the beautiful among the sordid facts of everyday existence. It inculcates purity and harmony, the mystery of mutual charity, the romanticism of social order. It is essentially a worship of the Imperfect, as it is a tender attempt to accomplish something possible in the impossible thing we know as life. cairoi 05:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this link could be used. It's an educational article from and educational organisation. http://academic.evergreen.edu/m/milesr/chadophilosophy.htm 24.87.87.211 06:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The title of this article is "List of groups referred to as cults". If those who practice the tea ceremony are not a group then they don't belong in this list. -Will Beback 07:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Teaists, Mate! It's CHADO -- the way of tea -- Like bushido! Less organisation than other groups but identifiable, connected by hundreds of years of tradition and litterature and still practiced in all seriousness as a spiritual world view by thousands. Look there's conventions with delegates and grand masters... http://www.urasenke.or.jp/texte/world/e_hawaii50/ehawaii50_3.html ... what more do you want?! It's obviously a benign cult but referred to as a cult by countless sources none the less. We're not in the business of judging the worth of cults on this list are we? cairoi 14:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
But what is the name of the group who follows the cult of teaism - the Japanese? -Will Beback 20:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The tea ceremony appears to be a part of Zen Buddhist tradition. If so, that would be the group that it should be included under. -Will Beback 20:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Chado is to Zen as Mormons, Christian Scientists and Branch Davidians are to Christianity. Teaism is a real English name for the Way of Tea and Teaists are the group that follow the practices and philosipy of the cult. Check out the following sites: http://www.teaism.com/About/Section215.html or http://www.worldspirituality.org/tao-zen-tea.html cairoi 21:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care if it's called Teaism or Chado or The Way of Tea; they're all the same. But it's not Zen or Daoism though it might be withing Zen. It's also not Chanoyu which is the ceremony. I think Teaism is a neat and tidy name. cairoi 21:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

So it sounds like a subgroup within Zen that practices the tea ceremony. "Teaists" is a lousy term becuase it is not widely used. "Chado" at least makes it clear that this is a Japanese group. (Google brings up "teaists" as a term to refer to the British affection for tea). -Will Beback 21:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Right-e-o, Chado it is cairoi 23:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Book of Tea

[BOOK] The Book of Tea - group of 14 » K Okakura - 1991 - books.google.com

My appologies. You are correct those two books are older than the required dates. They have been published many times as modern classics and the dates in google books sometimes reflect newer dates. cairoi 00:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Silliness again²

O.K. we already had a similiar case. Japanese tea ceremony isn't a group, so WTH is it included? But as the majority of article owners gets satisfaction from adding ever more entries to this list, event those clearly contradicting the lemma, I've least added a clarificatio in the intro to warn the unsuspecting reader. --Pjacobi 17:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Before you go judging things as silliness. Educate yourself. Check out the following sites: http://www.teaism.com/About/Section215.html or http://www.worldspirituality.org/tao-zen-tea.html. Teaism (Chado) is a cult with organisations all around the world. And it is commonly referred to in English as the Cult of Tea. Not silly. The GROUP should be on the list. cairoi 19:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
So restaurants can now be cults, too? (Hint: the link above is a commercial site for a tea house called "Teaism") Does that mean we'll be adding McDonaldsism versus Wendysism? What about Coffeeism? Or its splinter corporate version, Starbucksanity? --LeflymanTalk 19:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems in comparison not unreasonable... --Pjacobi 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Please also note that the majority article editors do not seek to add more names to this list. It is one editor who has made most of the recent additions, many of which have been contested. -Will Beback 19:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Chado is not so much about tea as about the way of living in the world and relating to people around you. It is centred on the making and sharing of tea with it's own rituals, philosophies and litterature. It is referred to as the Cult of Tea, Teaism, the Tea Cult and Chado. It's principle ceremony is Cha-no-yu. There are chapters and conventions and members. If that doesn't sound like a group referred to as a cult I don't know what is? cairoi 20:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "There are chapters and conventions and members." What you've just described is a club, not a cult. Will you next argue that the Boy Scouts and Trekkies should be added here, too? --LeflymanTalk 00:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Chado is a spiritual movement within Zen which is commonly referred to as a cult. Before you argue about my wording please do some extra reading yourself. cairoi 01:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Go again and read all the literature, including the from 1906 and 1941 which use the term cult, you will see the massive spiritual devotion to principles and practices. It is a religious cult witing Zen practice. Please read the NY Times article again; it uses the "Cult of the Tea Ceremony" on the first page. You will also notice that the list includes all senses of the word cult. Check the history on the talk page for confirmation of those decisions. I wonder if you want all the groups on this list to feel like a dangerous groups led by charismatic leaders. I am definitely not using the term cult like that. Teaism fits into a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols. The current concensus on this list as I understand it is that all definitions of cult must be permissable. cairoi 02:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually I'd like to do another snippy remark (on the lines the Trekkies being a cult is rather uncontroversial), but let's try to bring over a more serious argument:
  • If this list has to make some sense (as intended by the original and most current contributors - you know, I don't share this opinion), the it has to be limited to entries of (looseley speaking) evil, manipulating sects with a some tangible group structures (hierarchy, exploitation of the plain members, Rolls-Royce for the leaders). Or, in the spirit ofg the lemma, those groups which have been ascribed these features.
If you finally concede, that there is no practical way to achieve focus, it would be honor for me to formulate the (3rd?, 4th?) AfD.
Pjacobi 08:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I see the list as focussed on references to cult both good and bad from reputible sources in the last 50 years. Why do you think we must only list "evil" groups? cairoi 14:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me go on record as saying that Cairoi's willingness to play fast and loose and stupid in an effort to sabotage the list is not an acceptable reason to put this article in triple/quadruple jeopardy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Please explain in detail how you think my edits sabotage the list? I think they make it stronger. cairoi 14:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Despite my sadness on this, I am ready to concede that this list seems to be undeleteable.
But, Antaeus, I'd like to hear your opinion on the issue of focussing on one meaning of "cult".
Pjacobi 13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I personally will only feel comfortable with this list if it (1) includes all meanings of the word cult as it currently does or (2) specifically requires references to demonstrate that they fit into a narrow subset of the meaning of cult. I'm very willing to look at the second option. cairoi 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If this list includes all meanings of the word "cult" then, by definition (4), it might as well be a list of every religious group or idealist movement. Gimmetrow 14:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, frankly, my thoughts on focusing on one meaning of "cult" is "is this what the people fighting this article actually want? or is what they are pretending to want now, so that once they actually get it, they can turn around and use that as the excuse for the fifth AfD nomination?" At one point the criteria for this article was that a respectable source was describing the group as a cultic group, and editors were accused of doing "original research" by making judgements based on anything other than whether the source used the exact word "cult" or the exact word "sect". Now when our criteria are based on using the the exact word "cult" or the exact word "sect", many of the very same people are coming back and complaining that these criteria make no sense. And, Pjacobi, you're the one who put this article up for deletion three out of four times, so I find it hard to believe that you're not aware of this. Let me ask you, is there a possible version of this list that you wouldn't try to delete? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

National Labor Federation

Removed addition by anon, as the Rick Ross website is not a source agreed to be used as the basis for inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is The New York Times an acceptable source? This link: [11] has five New York Times articles about the group. 70.108.80.218 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If the NYT explicity refers to this group as a cult, you can include it in the list. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll add it with links to the NYT articles that specifically say "cult" about the group. But I'd like an apology for your inappropriate use of the test/vandalism script on my talk page. Is this how good faith edits always get treated by admins here? 70.108.80.218 02:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Apologies. Please note that the message placed is a standard message and it is not related to "vandalism" as you describe it. I have placed some pointers in yout talk page that may asist you in understanding how to best contribute to thsi project. As for the sources, please note that the group has to be clearly referred to as a "cult". It is not enough that the word cult is used in the article, to warrant inclusion in this list. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia (redux)

An editor is insistent upon adding Wikipedia, based on a single editorial in the UK's Guardian. This is either a causual or intentional misreading of the editorial-- the writer is purposefully stretching the definition to make a point: he's not saying that Wikipedia is actually a cult, but that those who involve themselves in online forums (such as on WP) can be particularly inflexible in their personal fandoms/activities/preferences, akin to those involved in a religion. He rails not against "cults"-- but against any self-organising group whose members stake out contrary hardline positions. To wit: "There is a quasi-religious fervour surrounding the "rightness" of Wikipedia, or Apple's products, or RSS vs Atom." But this can be reflected in off-line activities, too. Shall we add Football or Vegetarianism or High school subcultures to this list, too?

Inclusion of Wikipedia on this list would be a non-neutral self-reference, and fails the Avoid Self Reference guideline. Usage of "cult" in the article is purely a rhetorical device, and not comparable to the other usages here. --LeflymanTalk 16:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Leflyman, you are making two separate arguments here. I'll address them separately.
Your first argument, I believe, is the following syllogism:
  1. Even though the writer openly stated that "Wikipedia ... show[s] all the outward characteristics of a cult," he did not actually mean that it did.
  2. When the actual meaning of the source is clearly something far different than what its literal text states, we go by the actual meaning rather than by its literal text.
  3. Therefore we should disallow this source.
The problem with this syllogism is that premise 1 is not agreed upon. All we have to go on is what the writer said. Is it very likely that he was exaggerating for effect? Yes, it is. Does this establish, however, that what he really wanted to say about Wikipedia was "it isn't a cult but just has some annoying similarities to one"? No, it doesn't. I think we can all agree that there was a measure of exaggeration involved; I disagree that we can declare with any precision just how much he was exaggerating and then precisely subtract away that exaggeration to leave a precise statement of how cult-like Wikipedia is.
This is in fact why premise 2 is also problematic, since it presumes the ability of editors to go beyond what is verifiably in the literal text and derive the "actual meaning" from it. Now in fact there may be cases where all reasonable editors can recognize that the spirit of a piece is different from its literal meaning. Fine; in such cases it should be no problem to get a consensus of editors that the piece should not be interpreted literally. Allowing individual editors, however, to decide what the "actual meaning" of a source is, is a formula for trouble. Supporters of Political Cult Foo will remove Political Cult Foo from the list because "well, everyone knows that a cult has to be a religion, and therefore the actual meaning of this piece can't be that Foo is a cult." Therapy Cult Baz will remove itself from the list with the exact same logic. Financial Cult Bar will remove itself from the list, once again claiming that, no matter that we have the most reliable of sources stating in black and white "Bar is a cult", clearly the actual meaning of it must be something other than "Bar is a cult".
As for your WP:ASR argument, it does not hold up either. The key test of WP:ASR is to ask "would this content still a) make sense, and b) be in equally appropriate proportion, if it was being read somewhere other than Wikipedia?" (which, of course, it is likely to be, sooner or later.) An example of what would violate a) is if Wikipedia was discussed in the first person, i.e. something like "Here at Wikipedia, we blah-blah-blah" -- that doesn't make sense if it is being read on a mirror site, where "Here" is not "Wikipedia". In the same vein, if every other entry in the list got just a plain, unadorned line linking to the main article and listing sources, and Wikipedia received a whole paragraph discussing whether or not it was a cult, well, that would violate b). If you picture yourself reading it on a mirror site, you'll see that it makes no sense for the content to treat Wikipedia differently just because Wikipedia is the venue for which the content was initially developed. But ... that is exactly what you're suggesting. You're saying that Wikipedia should receive different treatment from any other group referred to as a cult, solely because the content is being developed on Wikipedia. That may not be a technical violation of WP:ASR but it is definitely a violation of the very purposes that guideline is meant to serve. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, my reasoning is not based on an obfuscatory syllogism, which you've presented as a strawman argument to defend the inclusion of Wikipedia in the "list of groups referred to as cults". For the sake of clarity, I'll reiterate: the writer of the editorial is clearly not contending that Wikipedia is an actual cult. The core of his opinion piece is that online forums/communities like WP can engender irrational divisiveness between people with differing personal preferences. He's using the term "cult" as a rhetorical device, not in its literal definition, but in the sense of those who strongly self-identify/associate themselves with a particular favorite activity or hobby. Basically, he's extending the common religious metaphors used in techage-old "console/computer wars"-- nowadays PCs versus Macs or Xbox vs. Playstation, but previously Atari vs. Commodore (which appears to still be ongoing)-- to be reflective of the whole panopoly of Web activities.
And yes, it is self-referential, no matter how much you might protest to the contrary. Wikipedia is not noted commonly as a "cult." Including it in this article makes it unique as the sole Web site/organisation thus listed— it's saying, "Look at how amusingly clever we are-- we're referring to ourselves as a cult!" Just because the word "cult" is used in an editorial doesn't immediately mean that Wikipedia is now among the "groups referred to as cults". By your reasoning, we should also include Blue Öyster Cult, Cult of the Dead Cow and, of course, The Cult here.--LeflymanTalk 00:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression that I like the current criteria. I don't. I merely abide by them. If what you said above was true, that the author meant cult only in the sense of "fandom", then it would be excluded by our criteria. However, what you said is not true; the writer is clearly not talking about Wikipedia as a cult just in the "devotion" sense, but in the "fanatic devotion that obstructs critical thinking" sense. The use of the word "cult" in the editorial is not a technicality but the core point that he is trying to make, and the degree to which his tongue is in his cheek as he makes it is, by reason of precedent, somewhat beyond our bounds to consider.
As for your second point, it is not a self-reference in the sense that Wikipedia:Avoid self-references addresses. Is it the only group on the list that is primarily if not solely Web-based? Yes. Does that exclude it from consideration? No. If the same source was saying the same things about some other Web-based group, would we discount it as "self-reference" because it's Web-based? "Avoid self-references" is about not giving Wikipedia special treatment in our content merely because Wikipedia happens to be where we're developing the content. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of God/Snake-Handling cult

Our article on Church of God says that it is the name of many groups. Which one are we referring to? -Will Beback 05:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I guess their called the Holy Ghost People and are a Church of God/Snake-handler cult. I'm afraid I'm not sure of the fine details but they are apparently unique for their use of snakes in worship. cairoi 06:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

AA

I've put in AA but am nervous about Chaz Bufe's credentials. He seems fairly anti establishment but his work seems very academic and well researched. How do others feel about that source? cairoi 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The Freedom of mind website article could be cited - or if not it contains many references to publications referring to the cult-like presence of AA. Sfacets 20:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think Hassan is considered acceptable on this site but some of the sources he cites could be. I'll try to look them up. cairoi 20:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hassan is considered reliable. Thus far the only "expert" we've discounted entirely is Rick Ross. -Will Beback 22:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction Will and for the contribution Sfacets. I'm going through the quotes. I see Bufe is cited there. It raises my confidence as do some of the people he has associated with and who have written his forwards. cairoi 00:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sunni and Shia

Before people get the knickers in a twist, I'd like to explain what I am not doing:

  1. I am not claiming that Sunnis or Shias are anything but mainstream Moslems
  2. I am not trying to undermine the integrity of this list by adding things that do not belong.

The list is called groups that are referred to as cult (with the aside that British sources will use sect). So, what I am highlighting is that The church of england will very rarely get the label sect while much vast and venerable groups like Sunnis and Shias get smacked with it. Is that a sub-concious disrespect in the language of Britons? I think this list is more about questions like that. cairoi 00:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Proposal for splitting this list in two lists

I noticed that this list started to use the sociological sources for inclusion e.g. for Meher Baba cult. Please note that the use of the word cult in the sociology of religion is usually well-defined, but quite different from the ones used by the public and the media. Sometimes almost in an opposite way. Apart from that several significantly different defintions exist in the sociology of religion. See e.g. sect, cult, church-sect typology. Give me a week and I can create an article sociological definitions of cult which will include significantly different definitions by among others Rodney Stark/Bainbridge, Yinger, Meredith McGuire, Roy Wallis. If the sociological sources are included in this list without proper explanation then the list becomes near-meaningless and extremely confusing and deserves to be deleted. I propose to split the list into groups referred to as cults by the media and groups referred to as cults in sociology Andries 20:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We could keep the list as is: List of groups referred to as cults and split it in two sections:
  1. Groups referred to as cults in the media
  2. Groups referred to as cults in sociology
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Your alternative is very close to my proposal. The two sections in one list is, I think, uglier in format than two different lists, but better for maintainability. Andries 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. agree. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Presumably there'd be subestantial overlap between the lists. Anyway, so long as info doesn't get deleted this plan sounds fine to me. -Will Beback 22:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of your plan as well. How will government sources be categorized? cairoi 22:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Since "in the media" was an ill-considered narrowing of the article subject to begin with, I would be happy to go along with removing it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition and criteria

The definition of "cult" was recently deleted as a WP:COPYVIO. Could someone explain why it is a copyvio here, but not in cult? Also, I am confused why "cult of the Virgin Mary", "cult of the Sacred Heart", or "cult of the Saints" are included. They are not groups, yet "this list indexes a number of groups that...." Gimmetrow 17:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The answer is that it's a copyvio in both places (I just didn't see it there.) Copying a full entry from a commercial reference work, such as a dictionary, in a Wikipedia article is a copyright violation. Referring to a small portion might be Fair use, but incorporating the entire wording from two dictionaries, as done in cult is definitely a no-no. See also: Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ. As for the non-groups you mentioned, if you feel they are inappropriate, propose an argument towards removing them--LeflymanTalk 17:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought I did propose an argument? They are "cults" under definition (1) that used to be listed - a system of religious veneration. When that definition was present, it at least fit the definition, although inclusion on that basis severely limited the "value" of the list in relation to (what I perceive as) the most likely use to a reader. Now, the header refers to "groups" multiple times in a way that doesn't apply to "cult of the Virgin Mary". Gimmetrow 18:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's ammunition for the removal:
From The Cult of the Virgin Mary in New York City, Paul Halsall, Introduction to Medieval History class website, Fordham University:
"The cult (which means "pattern of devotional practices" rather than anything more sinister) of the Virgin Mary was an important aspect of medieval religious piety. From the 6th century in Byzantium and rather later in the West, the cult of Mary expanded into a vast artistic, devotional, and imaginative aspect of Christian piety."
--LeflymanTalk 23:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • These three items were added recently by the editor that some suspect is trying to show, by action, that the current criteria are meaningless. I'm not sure how the Halsall quote fits in though, as this does fit definition (1) of a cult and the listing criteria says that nothing negative is asserted. But these cults are not "groups." Gimmetrow 00:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you people get off my back about this! (You're assuming bad faith) I like this List. I think it's interesting and challenging. So, I'm not trying to show that the criteria are meaningless. The criteria do mean a lot. However they include other groups called cults and sects which are not sinister. Some editors believe that this list is "List of sinister groups referred to as cults." That's pov-judgemental and thus Wiki-inappropriate. This List MUST be about ALL groups referred to as cults. If you are trying to restrict the meaning to "religious groups I don't like" then your POV editing should be removed. cairoi 02:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Cairoi, I merely reported in a NPOV way that some suspect something; I made no judgment. Here, I am arguing that three inclusions are not "groups" per the criteria, and your edits to the lead-in text have not changed that argument. "This list indexes a number of groups..." They are not even "religious groups I don't like" if they are not groups. Gimmetrow 03:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Gimmetrow, while you are looking at the "is a group", attribute, may you have a look at the "Tantrik" issue with the single source [12]? This gave me my first hair-pulling-incident regarding non-groups on the list. --Pjacobi 08:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I have trouble parsing that article - I'm not clear what is being called a cult there. I suppose this will survive AfD but the problems with criteria seem difficult to overcome. Gimmetrow 15:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The article was originally used as reference to put Tantrism on "our" list. That seemed overwhelmingly wrong to me. As removal of the entry was continously reverted, I compromised to describe the entry Certain Kali-worshipping Tantriks in Uttar Pradesh instead of deleting it. --Pjacobi 15:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
            1. Chado is organised into two schools with Masters and pupils. Sounds like a group to me! Your arguments suggest you don't want it on the list because it seems respectable to you and you only want disreputable groups. That is only one definition of cult. Unless we narrow the title and the definition down then groups like chado must be included.
            2. Could you be narrowing your focus to how we in the west view religion. Other cultures can belong to several religious "groups."
            3. And who said that these groups had to be religious anyways?! Perhaps Amway or Mary-Kay could go here too.
            4. I think that if we're going to get a concensus we'll have to nail down the definition of cult and the definition of group. Because we're all working at cross purposes. I would be happy with an List of "Religious groups looked down as cults" That seems to be what everyone is editing this list to be. (But it's not as per the title and the reqs)cairoi 15:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
At this point, I am specifically asking how "Cult of the Virgin Mary" is a group per title and the reqs, and more generally how it fits on the list. I'll get to Chado, Amway, "cult of silence", "cult of Positivism", ancestor-woship, Tantriks, Amish, and Pastafarianism later. Gimmetrow 16:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
There are marist orders and chapels. You tell me how it's not a group and how it doesn't fit in. cairoi 16:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Orders and chapels are groups. "Cult of the Virgin Mary" refers to no religious order or chapel. If the inclusion is not justified, it will be removed. Gimmetrow 17:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I think you're being arbitrary. Go look up what group means. These people are organised even led into a pattern of worship referred to as a cult. Have a look at this http://www.maristfathers.org/apichlmeier.html cairoi 17:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Answer me this: Were the crusaders a group? cairoi 17:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
"Marist Fathers" is unambiguously a group. "Crusaders", depending on what exactly that is supposed to signify, probably is a group. "Cult of the Virgin Mary" isn't a group. It doesn't even refer to people. The "only" reason I can see that it is on the list, is because it is a phrase with the word "cult" in it. Gimmetrow 17:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes crusaders were a group which included individuals and many subgroups. Many crusades were instigated/encouraged by the Pope. The international group traveled together and converged for a common purpose. http://www.medievalcrusades.com/ uses the phrase international group. Marists are instigated by the Pope and they behave much like crusaders except not violently or traveling to a specific place. They practice and promote the adoration of Mary throughout the world. One order among the cult of the virgin is the Marist fathers whose website I referenced.

As for the naming of the Cult of the Virgin I don't really care what it's called. However you seem to thing that it refers more to a system than a group. A cult can refer both to the system of belief and the group that follows the belief. Just like Church in Catholic Church can refer to the Catholics as a whole and to the buildings that house them.

As far as I can see the only object you have that stands up is that they don't fit your idea of what a cult group is. Which is different from the Pope's idea. If you want a list of groups popularily called cults then call it that as limit the definition to what people popularily think cults do. Make the references specifically qualify under that definition. We can't just have wikipedians deciding that one cult gets the label and not the other. cairoi 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a list of groups referred to as a cult. "Cult of the Virgin Mary" is a cult (it's in the phrase after all). You seem to be arguing that it is a group because "cult" can refer to either a system of beliefs or a group that follows them. You have not verified that this is the case here, it strikes me as original research, and does not appear to be the meaning used in the reference. We can't just have wikipedians deciding what gets the label without verification in reliable sources. As you have not verified that this entry matches the criteria for this list, it should be removed until it is verified. "Marist Fathers" is a group, and can be included if a reference exists. (PS, "crusaders" can refer to many things other than the Medieval European phenomena, and some of them may not be groups.) Gimmetrow 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not writing an encylopedia article here. I'm discussing with you. You go look it up in the dictionary yourself. I did. I found a reliable sources.
So answer the question were the MIDIEVAL crusaders a group? I've given you a link that talks about them as such. Will you accept them as an example of a group? cairoi 18:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
And after you answer that question. I'd be interested in knowing what this wikipedia article would lead us to discussing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mary_(Marists)cairoi 18:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it is, I was just explaining the "probably." I thought we were writing an encyclopedia article. The phrase doesn't seem to fit the criteria for this list of groups. I am also doubtful that "cult of the Virgin Mary" is itself "referred to" as a cult in the sourced reference - or should "cult of silence" be included in this list because it contains the word "cult"? Gimmetrow 19:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where you're going with this. Could you plese make yourself more plain. I'm not sure what references you're looking at. Also, though I did look at a cult of silence which was a sub-idea of the quakers. I wasn't sure if it was a group or not. I don't think I included it. If I did it should be out. cairoi 20:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to make an analogy, but the Quaker association confused it. So, how about the "cult of bread"? "Cult of bread" itself is not a recognizable group, and neither is "cult of the Virgin Mary". You seem to be saying that "people involved with the cult of the Virgin Mary" constitute a group to include here. If so, are "people involved with the cult of bread" a group to include here? About the reference, after each entry there is a reference supposedly supporting its inclusion. The reference given after "cult of the Virgin Mary" does not, in fact, say the "cult of the Virgin Mary is a cult." Technically, "referred to as a cult" is not even verified. Is the argument that it is a cult by definition, because of the word "cult"? If so, is "cult of bread" included here? You were the editor who added these "cult of" entries. If you do not support the inclusion, removal is justified. Gimmetrow 21:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This becomes mere listcruft when it includes anything and everything that has the word "cult" appearing in near-vacinity. As I mentioned above, under the creatively literal definition of "cult", the following should also be included:
  • Blue Öyster Cult and The Cult - both are "groups" which refer to themselves as cults, with wide-spread followers who contribute money in worship of their various published work
  • Cult of the Dead Cow - a crypto-religious group whose members engage in secret rituals, with a stated goal of "Global Domination Through Media Saturation"
And:
In sum, the particular editor who finds this list "interesting and challenging" and insists on being an absolute inclusionist is making this article instead, "pointless and confusing". --LeflymanTalk 23:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Leflyman, otherwise this is a list of phrases containing the word "cult." Cairoi has been asked to demonstrate that the "cult of" entries identify a group, and that the group have been "referred to" as a "cult", per WP:V and WP:NOR. He has not. Gimmetrow 18:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
If these groups have been referred to as "cults" by the media or other reliable sources, these can be included as per the stated criteria. Just note the caveat in the criteria that reads Not included in this list are personality cults (heads of state), fancults of popular culture, and groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups).≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD/4

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults.

That I now have to revert [13] angry anons removal [14] of Sunni and Shia from this list, was the drop too much.

As no consensus of editors can trump policy, and I sincerely believe that this list violates policy (primarily WP:NOR), I cannot help but constantly struggle for its deletion.

Pjacobi 09:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

/4? Isn't there a statute of limitations? Is AfD really the right place to discuss this? -Will Beback 10:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In hope of some input from senior editors on the more general question behind this, I've raised the issue also on the mailing list, see the thread starting here. --Pjacobi 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There is indeed a problem with lists, that we have tried to address at WP:LISTS. This proposed guideline has been questioned, probably because it removes ambiguity, and ambiguity is the best friend of POV pushing. Unless WP:LISTS is accepted and implemented, I see no way to curtail original research in lists. So, rather than fight yet-another-AfD on this list, our efforts should go into making WP:LISTS an accepted guideline, if not a policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How come the Latter-day Saints church, pagan religious groups, satanists or devil worshippers, and the Heaven's Gate or Unarius UFO cults not included? They are popularly refered to as "cults", although the LDS church or Mormons take great offense of the label. The term doesn't usually offend satanists, pagans and UFO cults, not likely recognized as a bonafide religious sect. + 207.200.116.14 09:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate is in the list, as is Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Unarius Academy of Science looks very much like it might be appropriate for the list, but no one has yet found an appropriate source (albeit, perhaps no one has looked.) -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antaeus Feldspar (talk • contribs). 00:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

I am quite displeased that Andries is attempting (once again) to solicit the original research of Alexandra Nagel: Reference. This very same material was already discussed in mediation: Reference. Andries should have known better than to cite Nagel's original research that was never published in reputable sources or cited by notable media. SSS108 talk-email 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think SS108 is misinterpreting the Wikipedia:No Original Research policy. I did not use the article by Nagel as a source but a reputable source quoted in the article by Nagel. This is fully allowed as far as I am aware.Andries 08:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The guideline wikipedia:cite your sources says that this article should not directly quote the book by Chryssides, but use the article by Nagel as a reference. "Say where you got it A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging it. " I admit that I have not always followed this guideline in the past. Andries 08:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but those guidelines also say that your souces should come from reputable sources. The article you make mention to is not from a reputable source. Therefore it should be removed. I suggest you cite the reputable sources that cite Alexandra Nagel's article that you are attempting to cite. Until you can do so, I am removing the entire reference. SSS108 talk-email 12:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

no, you are misinterpreting the policy Wikipedia:No Original Research andwikipedia:cite your sources. I will revert. Andries 12:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, do references need to be reputable or not? Yes or no? SSS108 talk-email 12:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nagels is quoting a reputable source that justifies inclusion. The guideline wikipedia:cite your sources tells me not use the reputable source directly as a reference, but instead mention it via the Nagel article. Andries 12:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Where did you get that idea from? It is absolutely correct to cite from a reputable source directly. The fact that a non-reputable source cites a reputable source, does not meant that you can cite the former. You have to cite the latter. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
He got that idea from the wiki style guide he linked. Gimmetrow 15:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
That is the strangest interpretation of WP:CITE I have ever read. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, I think the WP:CITE is unambigous and I do not see how this can be reasonably interpreted in another way than I have. Jossi, can you please explain? Here is the relevant excerpt from WP:CITE
"Say where you got it
A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging it. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your citation must mention the web page. Your citation might only mention the web page, or you can provide further information like this:
<Web page>, which cites <book>, or
<Book>, cited at <web page>.
However, you shouldn't cite only the book unless you looked at it yourself. If you checked the book, it is no longer necessary to mention the web page but you can still mention it if that would be useful information for readers. You can do so using a form like this:
<Book> (also see <web page>).
The purpose of this rule is to enable readers to judge the reliability of the evidence and to enable them to verify it to at least the same extent as you did."
Andries 16:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


It's verbatim there and in my own words, it's about two points:
  1. If you cite a book you haven't read, only relying on a quote on some website, better mention this. (But: After finally having read the book itself, the intermediary can be dropped, if not particulary interesting for our readers)
  2. If you cite from some obscure, hard to obtain book, better give an easier way to verify your source, or you may be accused of making this up.
So, in a way, I see the rationale behind this, but consider it strange anyway.
Pjacobi 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a skewed interpretation of the guidelines designed to promote a non notable source. Chryssides book is well known and accessible. If Andries has nbot read Chryssides' book, then the cite is not quotable as it is not available from a reliable source. So either we cite Chryssides, or we do not cite at all.
So, the question is: Is this Nagel a reliable source? If so, leave it, if it is not then remove it. As far as I can read from the mediation discussions, Nagel was accepted not to be a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, I am still waiting for an answer from you how this cannot be reasonably interpreted the way I interpreted it. The question whether this Nagel article is a reputable source is not relevant. Jossi, I think you are completely misinterpreting the policies and guidelines. I meticulously followed the guidelines and policies and guidelines in this case. Andries 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 16:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I refuse to enter into a revert war with you about this. Obviously you interpret the guidelines in a narrow if not very strange way so that you can get away with it. As perWP:CITE and [WP:RS]] sources have to be reliable and verifiable to be used in articles. And please do not use edit summaries such as "violation by XXX" in the future. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, if you do not agree with the WP:CITE guidelines (that are unambigious on this subject) then please try to get them changed, because I intend to follow this guideline in many other articles as well. I do not the article by Nagel as a source, but the reputable book by Chryssides (that was by the way was dead-wrong on the subject). However the WP:CITE guideline tells me to mention that I quoted the book by Chryssides via Nagel. Andries 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
No, Andries, no. If that was the case, every John and Mary will start citing unreliable sources in every article under the pretext that these unreliable sources are citing reliable sources! There is no way that the wording of the WP:CITE guideline can bypass the policy of WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Look at it this way: if a source is unreliable for a subject, it is also unreliable as a source for citing material about the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I think that you are confusing things. If I have a website in which I have copied excerpts of a reputable newspaper. Then others who have read my website can use the excerpts from the newspaper as a source, though it is better to refer directly to newspaper if it is available online and if you have read it. But if this is not the case then the website should be linked to according to WP:CITE Andries 17:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As the book isn't of hard-to-obtain kind, it boils down to the clause 'but you can still mention it if that would be useful information for readers regarding the web page.
And, yes, the policy should be better worded in this respect.
--Pjacobi 17:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You cannot cite from a non-reputable source, period. See WP:V. I will ad some wording to WP:CITE to this regard. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I only cited from the reputable book by Chryssides. Andries 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
No. You are citing from a non-reliable source that purports to cite a reputable source. If source is not reliable for information contained, we cannot assume it is reliable for anything else. In any case, I will be going toi the library later today and will be able to confirm Chryssides's cite. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

<<<<I have added this to WP:CITE. I invite you to discuss at talk. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Important: Note that intermediate sources cited in this manner, must be reliable sources in their own right to be used as such .
I amended this, it is sufficient if one can assume that the intermediate quotes the reliable source correctly. More is not needed. Andries 17:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, are you saying that I can remove the links to the Divine Downfall, Secret Swami and Seduced references and replace them with links to my site since my pages contain the references to them? That is exactly what you are doing. You are trying to cite non-reputable sources that are original research just so you can cite a reputable source referenced in that non-reputable source. This is desperate at best. You are not going to get away with it. SSS108 talk-email 18:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge difference. The complete online text of the Divine Downfall and the Secret Swami is available from the original publisher so there is no need to use intermediate sources. Andries 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that jossi plans to verify the primary quote directly - in which case the intermediate source will be irrelevant. Gimmetrow 18:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Listcruft

After all the hard work, this list is becoming utterly useless. People adding groups just because anyone referred to a group as a cult. Useless listcruft. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The point here is to try to avoid listcruft, by enforcing the criteria of 1) groups, and 2) referred to as a cult. I doubt (2) is automatically satisfied just because the entry contains the word "cult", and in regard to (1), some of the entries are either not obviously groups, or are not verifiably called a "cult" as a group. (Also it was decided a while ago that "just anyone" was not enough - the reference basically had to be a journal or mainstream media.) Gimmetrow 23:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Referred to as a cult by whom, Gimmetrow, by whom? Anyone? One reputable source? the media? an anti-cult advocate? a tabloid? the [American Family Foundation]], the Lutheran church of Amsterdam, who? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe the criteria were one reputable source in mainstream media, but you could look that up. Gimmetrow 05:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case, many entries will need to be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Gimmetrow 16:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults_archive6_f233.html"