Talk:List of groups referred to as cults/archive7

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

Neutrality warning

I gave the section groups referred to as cults in sociological sources a neutrality warning because of the repeated removal of the well-referenced entry Sathya Sai Baba here is the reference.

Nagel, Alexandra A Guru Accused Sai Baba, from Avatar to Homo-paedophile (August, 2001) citing book byChryssides, George D. "Exploring New Religions, London/New York: Cassell, 1999:179-192, quote on p. 180.
”It is perhaps surprising that Sai Baba attracts so little attention from anti-cult organisations, since the movement possesses a considerable number of characteristics that are associated with the notion of ‘cult’ in its sociological senses. (…) Sai Baba’s relative immunity from criticism has no doubt been due in part to the fact that (…) Sai Baba has never been involved in any sexual or financial scandal, but has lived true to his teachings. The only major controversy generated by the movement relates to the miracles themselves. Sai Baba has been criticised by the Indian Rationalist Association as one of India’s many spurious miracle workers, preying on the superstition of an inadequately educated Indian population.”
Andries 18:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Divine Downfall and Secret Swami are published by reputable sources. The article, from Nagel, that you are trying to cite has not been published or referenced by reputable sources. You have yet to inform us which notable media has published the article you are trying to cite from Nagel. Just because Nagel cited what appears to be a reputable reference does not qualify her original research as being reputable. What do you fail to understand about all this? I don't want your excuses, Andries. I want you to show me where this article, from Nagel, was published by reputable sources. First do that and then we can discuss other issues. SSS108 talk-email 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of NPOV tag because an editor "runs out" of reverts, is unacceptable. We are discussing this issue at WP:CITE. Can editors have patience until this issue is resolved rather than reverting or using NPOV tags? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jossi for your explanation, but I disagree. I followed the policies and guidelines meticulously. In contrast, you broke WP:CITE because you did not like the guideline. If there is somebody whose behavior is unaccactable then it is yours, not me. Andries 05:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
To come down to a practical level, the question is whether there it is safe to assume that Nagel quote the reputable source by Chryssides correctly. I think the answer to this question is yes. This means that this entry fulfills both the spirit as well as the letter of the guidelines and policies. Andries 12:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The appropriate thing to do when you find a quote in an unreliable source is to verify the quote and cite it directly. For this article it was decided a while back not to accept references from non-governmental anti-cult sources. This is a higher standard than simply a reliable source. Until you look at the book itself, the citation is really the website and so it must meet the standard for this article. I don't know if saiguru.net does. Once the book quote is verified (which should be easy in this case), it will be fine. Gimmetrow 14:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. This discussion would have been moot, if Andries just did a short round trip to the library to verify Chryssides' cite (a thing I will do as soon as I hve some time). But he clearly prefers a link to that website because that website furthers his POV. His interpretation of WP:CITE, i.e. bypassing WP:V by means of citing from a non-reliable source, for the purposing getting a link to his partisan website, is a bit disingenuous, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, the library nearby my house does not have the book. I linked to the webpage not to push my POV, but because it is prescribed by the WP:CITE guideline. Can you please assume my good faith in this respect? Andries 14:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to assume good faith, Andries, and trying really hard. Not easy, though. That website is not a reliable source and cannot be used as a source: you are bypassing the policy of WP:V and the guideline of WP:RS by narrowingly interpreting the style guide of WP:CITE. Not a good thing, Andries. I will go to the library and confirm that citation when I have some time. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
No, Jossi, you are misinterpreting policies and guidelines. The WP:CITE guideline was unambigious in this respect until you changed it because you did not like it. What if I find a webpage with a complete copy of a reputable newspaper article? That webpage be fine to use as an intermediate soure if there is good reason to believe that the intermediate website correctly quotes the reputable newspaper. And of course this should be made explicitly clear to the reader. Andries 17:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. But if the entire text is available then you are reading the primary text, it just happens to be available at a website. (That might even be on partisan websites favorable to the text, where a reasonable assumption might be made for accuracy.) But a quote is not the full text, and context matters. Gimmetrow 17:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me give you an example, Andries. Imagine the website of the Aryan Nations. Imagine that they cite in their website a book about Judaism which they quote out of context to push a white supremacist POV. Would you allow the linking to the Aryans Nation's website page in which they cite the reputable source about Judaism in the Holocaust article? Or would you remove it on the basis of the fact that such website is not a reputable source for the subject? The style-guide of WP:CITE cannot and should not be used as a subterfuge to bypass WP:V and WP:RS. I changed the style-guide, because it was obviously open to misinterpretation as demonstrated by your comments and actions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, of course, a website can correcty but out-of-context quote a reputable source. That is why I did not quote a word by Nagel but only the reputable source quoted by Nagel. Is there, do you think, a real chance that Nagel seriously misquoted Chryssides? That is the only important question for the issue at hand. And the answer is I think that there is no real chance that Nagel seriously misquoted Chryssides. If the Aryan Nation has on their website a reputable source e.g. a book about Judaism then it is fine to use the Aryan Nation website as an intermediate source if there is of course good reason to believe that they did not distort the reputable source. And yes the editors should be wary of out-of-context use of the reputable source. But in this case how can Nagel have quoted Chryssides out of context? I do think this was reasonably possible. Andries 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, Andries. As per WP:V, we cannot assume that the person quoting a reputable source (if not a reputable source in itself) is quoting accurately and not out of context. That is why WP:V is there, to remove that ambiguity. You may know this Nagel, and you may not have a good reason to believe this or that. But think of the reader. How can the reader make that same assessment? By including a citation in Wikipedia, we are telling readers: "As per our content policies, our content reports only reputable and verifiable sources", but this is not the case here, is it? That is what I mean that 'WP:V cannot be bypassed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
How can you be sure that a copy of a newspaper article has not been distorted? There is no way to be sure. I consider your arguments totally unconvincing. There is no real chance that Nagel seriously miquotes Chryssides. If readers do not trust this Nagel then they can verify her quote of the reputable source. That is why we mention not just Chryssides, but also Nagel. There is nothing more to discuss anymore between us. I will seek Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Andries 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Andries, I suspect the quote is accurate, but saiguru may still not be the type of source acceptable for this article. I'm mostly concerned with the idea of using a part of such a source just because that part "seems" to be accurate. Especially when this all can be avoided with inter-library-loan. Gimmetrow 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Dispute resolution, Andries? For what? You can discuss and help shape policy at WP:CITE or WP:V. I am not in dispute with you about this specific link, as I have already said that I will check the source. I invite you to continue the discussion at WP:CITE, so other editors can hopefully clarify this issue for you better than I have been able to. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I filed a request for comments Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy Andries 21:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is my experience that nobody reacts on a RFC. Andries 21:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

An RFC is not necessary, Andries. The discussion does not belong here but at WP:CITE. As for the sepcifics of this source, I will check Chryssides book at the library so that we can include tat citation without violating WP:V. 21:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Policy pages would likely get better response on this than religion/philosophy. Regarding sources, the standard for this article is roughly mainstream media or journal. These sources go through fairly good fact-checking, and are generally not just the opinion of one person unchecked. Scholarly book should be fine. At least that was the reasoning and the agreement - following it is another issue. Gimmetrow 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Could not fin Chryssides book in my nearest library, but found a citation that is pretty good, and an example of a reliable source, quoting other reliable sources on the subject. This is a book by Morton Klass, in which he describes the opinion of other two authors. I hope that this case is now closed. We have a reliable source for including SSB in the list, without having to bypas WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Another quote from that book, this time from page 95, reads:
"Swallow [D. A. Swallow]] [...] does in fact refer to the movement that has grown up around Sathya Sai Baba as a "God-Man's Cult" ( Swallow 1982: 123), but it is difficult to see how his teachings on the nature of the guru and on the relationship between leader and disciple differs significantly from those of traditional Hinduism."
We could chose the current quote, or the above for the footnotes. I leave that to others to chose which one is more appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, there are a few of us that watch RFCs, and that is how I got here. My personal standard is to only speak up on simple ones. This is simple - if a non-reliable source cites a reliable source, go check the reliable source. Don't rely on the non-reliable source. Yes, that might take research, but we ask for reliable sources because they are reliable. This article seems on a quick read of the discussion on this talk page to have even higher than normal standards for what it will accept as a reliable source. That should be a clear indication that sourcing should be held to the highest standards here, reinforcing the need to go find the reliable source. GRBerry 22:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

French Report

The French report deals mainly with sects it considers dangerous but it also lists some sects it considers benign. This is not a list of dangerous sects only. If some groups in the report are labelled sects and should be included in this list then all groups labelled as such must also be included. cairoi 20:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We either include all groups or none. Including some and excluding others violates WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Then the list should be a redirect to List of religions. If the fear of POV means you have to include every religion ever referred to as a cult than it amounts to the same thing.--T. Anthony 07:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed Pentecostals. In the English version, that word is used exactly twice - once in a list of "groups we've had phone consultations about", and once in a short list of "movements." These "movements" seem to be related to "sects" in the text, but do not seem to be "referred to" as sects in that passage. "Pentecostals" are not listed in any of the tables identifying "cults" or "sects" in the report. We cannot include them simply because they are mentioned in a report about cults, if the report does not "refer to them as cults." Gimmetrow 20:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You haven't read enough around the Pentecostal Quote. It does call them movements and they are referred to as the first wave of sects to be established in France, and I quote:
a) The nature of the sects
A study of the sects currently established in France shows that those settled in two vague but quite distinct groups.
The first emerged at the beginning of the 20th century, which saw religious movements born for the majority in Anglo-Saxon countries [enraciner? coming from the same race? descendents?] from the French society. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Pentecostals, Adventists, Baptists: all these movements resulting from the protesting world joined their dispute of the official doctrines of the Church to that already expressed by groups resulting from catholic mobility (Antoinistes, followers of the Christ of Montfavet).
I'm putting pentecostals back. cairoi 21:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it says sects divide into two groups. One group of sects emerged at a time when certain religious movements did some stuff. Sects are historically related to those "movements" but this does not refer to the movements themselves as sects. One or more specific groups of Pentecostals are listed as cults elsewhere in the text. You find the list and list them. Gimmetrow 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The French Report contains a list of groups it considers as sects. They therefore refer to them as sects. Shouldn't this mean that the entire list should be included in this article if the French report is being used as a source?
It shows true bias if only a select few from the list are included. Sfacets 22:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm back-pedalling. Gimmetrow was right. (Thank you) I've checked the french text as well and to me it seems as if that list hides in a relative clause and so would not be named as sects. I think this is an accident of the text and the author actually did not intent to protect the pentecostals and adventists as the majority of other members of that same list are named as sects in a later part of the article. Maybe I'm missing something subtle in the french text. Perhaps some of our francophone editors could have a look to see if I'm right. cairoi 22:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
a) La nature des sectes
Une étude des sectes actuellement implantées en France montre que celles-ci se sont installées en deux vagues bien distinctes.
La première remonte au début du XXe siècle, qui a vu des mouvements religieux nés pour la plupart dans des pays anglo-saxons s'enraciner dans la société française. Témoins de Jéhovah, Mormons, Pentecôtistes, Adventistes, Baptistes : tous ces mouvements issus du monde protestant vinrent joindre leur contestation de la doctrine officielle de l'Eglise à celle déjà exprimée par des groupes issus de la mouvance catholique (Antoinistes, adeptes du Christ de Montfavet).
It seems to me that the author intended the connection with sectes implantées et mouvements qui s'enraciner. But it's not clear. cairoi 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I added one of the Pentecostal groups. Also, I find it confusing that some of the references after the entries link somewhere, and some do not. I would really like to go through the list and make sure all the references are correct and properly hotlinked. Cairoi - could you expend some effort that way too, either with the current entries or with any new ones? Gimmetrow 22:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure'd be happy to help with the links. I find them quite confusing right now. I'll have to nut them out. cairoi 23:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


(Maybe it's lack of sleep) But this just shows that there are two distinct movements, it doesn't 'protect' anyone - it starts of the introduction to the two "waves" by using the sentence :
"Une étude des sectes actuellement implantées en France montre que celles-ci" Translation: A study of 'Cults' shows that those settled"
The french word 'celles-ci' refers directly to 'sectes' taking on the feminine of 'sectes' applying the descriptor to the two both "waves" described below it. Sfacets 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering about this sentence: "La première remonte au début du XXe siècle, qui a vu des mouvements religieux nés pour la plupart dans des pays anglo-saxons s'enraciner dans la société française." The first [wave of sects] showed up at the begining of the 20th centrure, which saw religious movements born for the most part in anglo-saxon countires root themselves in French society.
There could be two readings: (1) The first wave of sects saw the rise of the movements (2) the 20th century saw the rise of the movements. I think that the comma after "siecle" shows that the "qui" clause relates to "La premier" instead of to "le XXe siecle". Which means that the first wave of sects saw the rise of all those movements. But I'm fuzzy on the use of the virigule in French punctuation as to whether it would do that. cairoi 23:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
hmmm I'm pretty sure it refers to the 1st meaning the virgule merely marks a pause in this case and leads from the first part of the sentence to the next. "La premiére" (the first) already refers to "les vagues", so "qui a vu" should refer to "le XXe siécle".
Sfacets 23:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right. I feel comfortable leaving it the way it is if you are. cairoi 17:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

References style and other issues

There seems to be 4 or 5 reference styles being used here. I would really like inline references, so that it is easy to verify one entry without jumping down to two types of footnotes. That would be fine for online sources - but to to treat references to books? In any event, all online references must be hotlinked like (FR). Anything unlinked should get removed eventually. Also, here's some for Cairoi to work on - 1) the entry for "Temple of Set" references an article that doesn't contain the word "cult"; it does contain "sect", but the current criteria only allow that in UK or French sources 2) entry for "Endeaver Academy" is dead 3) BBC reference for "Aum Shinrikyo" has no link 4) salon entries for Rajneesh, Roch Theriault, MOVE, People's Temple, ISKCON, Westboro Baptist, no link Gimmetrow 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed this unless someone can verify that the reference is mainstream media or official govt.Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University a.k.a. Brahma Kumaris [1]

WHO WROTE THIS?TalkAbout 02:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I did. Note that I left everything as you wrote it, just moved it here for verification. It wasn't deleted. Here we want references to mainstream media like BBC, or to govt. reports. Anti-cult or private sites are not used. I just couldn't tell what this was. Also I fixed the style of other items you added, please keep the style consistent with the rest of the page. Encarta has always been there. "External links" are for general info about many cults - links with info about a particular cult would be referenced in the entry for that cult, if they are mainstream media. We'll help you get the entry set up. Gimmetrow 03:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, thank you for your assistance. I am still working on learning the styles etc. I always welcome assistance during my learning curve. RegardsTalkAbout 20:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

TalkAbout, Please, do not revert without discussion. In this article, only references to mainstream media (like the BBC) or official government reports are generally acceptable, and they must clearly call the group a cult using the word "cult". If you will identify which of your sources are mainstream media and do that, I will help you get the entry set up.
Also, when editing articles, Please try to match the writing style of that article. I had already edited some of your other contributions to match the style. Please do not revert that again. Gimmetrow 20:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University a.k.a. Brahma Kumaris

[2] Dangerous Sects, As to removing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University a.ka. Brahma Kumaris I pose this question: Please see the Wiki page with several websites that provide main media reports, academic reports, ex-members accounts, website for ex-members, assistance for ex-members. See the Child Abuse Report, with the responses by the organisation. There are volumes there to reference. So, Gimmetrow don't remove information just because it is not what you want to know. The galeon.hispavista has an academic report in Spanish from a respected university in direct contrast to Brahma Kumaris that say they are a University but have no proof to back this up. Several Governments have prevented them from advertising this as a fact. So, see the Wiki page and go from there.

Here are just a few sites to start off with:ex-B.K. http://www.bkwsu-critique.com/ Balanced critique of the B.K.W.S.U. to counter the mostly negative critiques currently available on the internet http://www.brahmakumaris.info/ Independent website on the B.K.W.S.U. with no affiliation to the B.K.W.S.U. http://www.brahmakumaris.info/indexbb.html Discussion forum for BKs, ex-BKs and PBK with no affiliation to the B.K.W.S.U. http://ex.brahmakumaris.info/xbkchat/ Archives of XBK Chat forum (3,000 postings) http://xbkinfo.infogami.com/ A guide to life after leaving the Brahma Kumaris http://xbkinfo.infogami.com/personal Personal stories of ex-BKs http://www.abia29.hemscott.net/Inner_Dialogues.htm Time and Eternity "Inner Dialogues" by Paul Brocklehurst 2003 [edit] Critical http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~eromain/childprotection.htm Report on Child abuse within BKWSU and response by Senior Administrators. http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=206345 http://www.cesnur.org/testi/bryn/br_kranenborg.htm http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/books/nhbrevobser.htm Neville Hodgkinson, 'AIDS; The Failure of Contemporary Science, UK 1996 [edit] Christian http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/othergrp/brahma.htm Reachout Trust report [ Christian group ]. http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/testimony/brahmaanon.htm [edit] Islamic http://www.islamicvoice.com/august.99/dialogue.htm view from " Islamic Voice "

Also, I don't see the value in you removing ENCARTA from the page. RegardsTalkAbout 02:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation by Resource Content

I love how Gimmetrow has broken the list up to make it more readible. It got me thinking; to reduce confusion, maybe we could categorise the cults by reference content. This is different from how reviously we tried to categorise by reference reputation. I believe that was unsuccessful because it didn't really add meaning like the references do.

I'd like to propose a few laddered categories for reference content alont the lines that Pjacobi proposed with his definitions in the disclaimer. A group could sit in several categories but couldn't really progress up the ladder of impact unless there was a reputible source. I think it would be fair to groups as we should only have reputible sources.

  1. Controversial Sourcing - catebory for groups referred to in controversial sources which are not agreed upon as reputible a group would only move up the ladder if a reputible source moved them into one of the higer rungs.
  2. Devotional - category for groups referred to as systems of devotion
  3. Unorthodox - category for groups labelled as cult because of unorthodox beliefs and practices
  4. Cohersive - category for groups where references identify cohersion
  5. Violent - category for groups where references identify violence

I think this would reduce confusion in understanding a difficult term. It also allows the references to shine as that is what this list is based on.

Please comment or vote below... cairoi 17:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see this happening. The references themselves were poorly maintained. What you are suggesting would take time and effort (=OR), and would likely not be handled consistently (=NPOV). I fear many issues trying to make questionable judgement calls about what is "unorthodox" or "coercive." (I'm assuming that's what you meant.) Let's get the references themselves fixed. Gimmetrow 01:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Even if you don't think some of the categories would work what about using the Devotional Category or the especially the controversial category in view of the Government sources. It seems POV to allow a section for government reports which "insinuates" something more trustworthy but the French report seems to be from disputed sources. Much like Tony Blaire's Dodgy Dossier. cairoi 16:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria: Two or more key sources

What do you editors think about splitting the list, restricting the first list (which could appear under a heading such as "Wider consensus") to those with two or more sources listed in the "Key to sources"? The other cults could then appear below the first list (or even be removed from the page altogether). --Monger 15:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Although requiring two refs might not do much, more refs would probably cut down on "odd" entries. One problem is that it would create a bar for adding new entries, which wouldn't add until two or three mainstream refs were found at the same time. I just envision editorA adding XYZ group (ref1), it getting deleted, then a month later editorB adds XYZ group (ref2), deleted again for lack of two refs. Gimmetrow 19:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This article used to arrange the entries into tiers or cohorts based on the imputed reliability of the sources. After much effort deciding on the scheme and implementing it, we eventually dropped it because the sorting of sources was viewed as original research. -Will Beback 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Groups referred to as "cult" in the media

The controversial French commission report (marked as "FR) is not media, but all groups mentioned in this report are in that subsection. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"FR" and "US" are govt. reports. I don't recall any discussion to separate them from media when separating the sociology entries was discussed? Should we have a third category? Should other journal entries (from Psychology and History) go in the sociology category, maybe renamed journals? Gimmetrow 03:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes! I brought this up earlier. cairoi 16:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The references are still not fixed. Who is going to maintain further complexities in this list? Gimmetrow 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that appellate courts in both France and Belgium have instructed government entities to NOT refer to Sahaja Yoga a.k.a. Vishwa Nirmala Dharma as a cult. It is more correctly a new religious movement of Indian origin. Sahajhist 10.10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[3][4] But what does this mean for this list? This list makes no assertion that groups are or are called harmful cults, only that a verifiable source called them cults. It's not clear how a court decision affects the validity of (FR), and even if FR could not be used, the entries did have another source. Gimmetrow 00:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I added "and government reports" to the heading to cover the French report. There was a U.S. Congressional report used as a source for one group, bit I can't recall which group, when it was deleted, or why. -Will Beback 00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"Government reports" may not be an accurate descriptio and by grouping them all in the same category, you may be asserting that all these are such. I will change the text accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot come up with a way to change the section as you have stated it, but I think that it is innapropriate as it stands now, on the basis that (a) it can be construed that all these groups have been referrred as cults in governamental reports and (b) The French report was made by a parliamentary comission and not endorsed by the French "government". I leave it with you to find a better way to organize the section(s). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm tending to the view that any complications to this list are not maintainable, and that the list shouldn't be split by type of reference. On another point, someone added "Jesus Army" with a citation to the "Northampton Citizen", a defuct publication with a little over two years run. Does that qualify as "mainstream media"? Gimmetrow 18:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What's more, one citation from a relatively dubious source, or even a newspaper reporting a biased speaker pushing his POV, is enough for inclusion in this list, while any number of "non-cult" references from reputable media has no effect. (As an example, the BBC refers to the Jesus Army as a church on this web page.) I can't see how an NPOV can come out of this. --John Campbell 10:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If the result is clearly wrong, the criteria cannot be uphold

Whatever the formal reason for including Sunni now is, it's only a sign that the current set of criteria are nonsense. --Pjacobi 18:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if you think this is a list of small evil organisations. I happen to think it's a list of groups referred to as cults or sects (BR and FR). If you were to limit this group to small evil groups then it would be NPOV. The question that I think should really be asked here is why do the British call cults and minor divisions of christianity sects but not the major ones? Shouldn't that then hold up for the major divisions of Islam? I think is should but it doesn't in British English. They use a word to look down upon other religions. That's not non-sense. It may show something other than what you're expecting from this list but it's true and it's NPOV. Why don't you work on the disclaimer and header. I liked what you did before with the explanations of the definitions. Maybe we could use a definition from wikipedia instead of another dictionary. cairoi 19:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion for improving the criteria? Gimmetrow 19:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
See above (or in the archives). The least useless and mind-boggling use of this list would be to list cults in the narrow sense of "dangerous, conflict-bearing, manipulating", of course still with the caveat, that classification is to a varying degree disputed. And not one cite found, add it to the list, but it has to be at least a verfiable view of a significant minority of observers. Details have to be fleshed out, if some initial consensus for this move can be found. I don't give this a big chance. --Pjacobi 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The Sunni entry has been in the list for nearly a month. I prefer to maintain status quo unless an argument is made for a change. As for criteria, this list could require (say) three or more refs to mainstream media organisations, and then include a description of the "cultiness" including any sources for the opposing view. That would result in a very well-documented list probably approaching the narrow sense. But at the moment, those aren't the criteria. Gimmetrow 19:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The references for Sunni and Shia use the word "sect" in the sense of denomination. To answer Ciaroi's question, I am not sure why as someone who is British, I use "denomination" for Christianity, "sect" for Islam, "tradition" for Buddhism, "school of thought " for Hinduism etc. However, by talking about the Sunni or Shia sect, I would not imply to a British audience that I considered Muslims to be members of a cult, which would very obviously be a serious misinterpretation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.189.218.168 (talk • contribs).

The list says at the beginning that it does not imply anything negative by "cult" and thus it is similar to the British use of "sect." Since most of the non-regular editors are not catching this, the current criteria must not be matching how people interpret the list. This could be an argument for either changing the criteria, or for rewriting the intro with better emphasis. Gimmetrow 20:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you may be thinking of only one definition of the colour changing word cult/sect. We are currently including all definitions. cairoi 20:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, in which case I agree with Pjacobi. If the entries that currently only have one reference were deleted, this would be a significant improvement, listing Sunni and Shia or Quakers for that matter as cults is slightly misleading in my opinion. [—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.189.218.168 (talk • contribs). Please sign your comments with ~~~~ ]
Is there any objection to requiring two references for each entry in this list? (I do have a weak issue with it as a new hurdle, but not an objection.) I intend to edit out any unlinked salon/etc. entries, and could edit out single-ref items at the same time. Gimmetrow 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I object, and I also object to a hurried removal of entries which don't meet new criteria. -Will Beback 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I, too, object to huried removal of entries which don't meet new criteria (I think editors should have a chance to improve sources for listings). That is why, earlier, I suggested initially splitting the list under subheadings, with one subheading reading something along the lines of "Wider Consensus." However, I do not think it is at all unreasonable to require two sources. I think this list would be well served by slightly redefining itself to a listing of new religious movements for which there is at least a limited amount of consensus among mainstream media that the term cult is appropriate. --Monger 00:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I asked if there were any objections. That is, soliticing feedback before an action. How do you get "hurried" out of that? Gimmetrow 00:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I reconfirm that I agree with Pjacobi the current set of criteria are nonsense. Entirely legitimate usage of "sect" to imply "denomination" is being misconstrued, resulting in a list that is clearly inappropriate. However to move forwards, deleting all of the entries without multiple sources would be a significant improvement. 80.189.222.110 14:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was boggled by the inclusion of "Baptists" and "Quakers" on this list, yet I think it demonstrates that this page has achieved a usefully neutral method of listing such groups, usefully including the single-source French Report.† I think my boggle issue is due primarily to the French usage of "sectes", possibly meaning "denomination" but maybe not always. Religion being the subtle and controversial topic that it is, a consensus intercultural translation of the denotations and connotations of "sectes" (or other foreign words) cannot be guaranteed for English-speaking casual readers. However, there may be a simple help to supply context: put into italic parentheses after each group the contextually exact word that was used in the original report. Thus Baptists (sectes) FR, or (cult, sect, sectes) where multiple references are cited. To be scrupulously fair, the page name should also be changed in a similar way; e.g., 'List of groups referred or translated as cults or sects'. I appreciate the effort regular editors have put into keeping this page neutral, and I would have voted to keep it. Milo 05:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
†Ok, I'm now leaning toward requiring multiple sources, having learned two reasons for them. See my comment at 'Multiple and reputable sources' . Milo 01:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia vs dictionary

Forgive me if I don't use the best fitting word, as English is not my first language. A dictionary is about words whereas an encyclopedia is about concepts. This is why have disambigs (one word, more than one concept) and redirects (one concept, more than one words). Unfortunately, this list, respectively some of its authors, didn't get this fundamental message. It tries to count uses of the word "cult", not caring for the concept implied by different authors in different sources. OTOH it doesn't recognize, that traditionally different words are used for the same concept within different religions ("denomination" for Christianity, "sect" for Islam, "tradition" for Buddhism, "school of thought " for Hinduism). --Pjacobi 21:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. However, I think if Gimmetrow could go ahead and edit out any unlinked entries and single reference items, this would be a significant improvement. 80.189.218.168 21:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Previous attempts to limit this list to the negative concept of "cult" have raised NPOV and OR issues. How do you propose handling those issues? Gimmetrow 21:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That's because the list is in a cul-de-sac. If you can't make it into something, which fits into an encyclopedia, it has finally to be deleted. But as it is undeleteable (for now), let's try the least worse method. For example, a certain editor is suspected to add ever more strange entries, to warn the readers, that the list is somewhat nonsensical. But this has a WP:POINT problem.
Therefore I'm making this limiting to one concept proposal. If sources are that indifferent, that not even the concept behind the word can be read out of them, they aren't good enough sources. Voila!
I'll address the NOR issue later.
Pjacobi 22:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, including Shia Islam in a list of groups referred to as cults based purely on the usage of Professor Humayun Ansari does not conform to established standards of editorial practice. Essentially, if this article is to be improved instead of deleted, we have to start from somewhere. 80.189.218.168 22:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, in the absence of counterargument, could I delete Shia and Sunni from the list on the grounds their sources were using the word cult in the sense of denomination. 80.189.222.110 12:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
We still use all definitions of cult and sect on this list. cairoi 13:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I acknowledge that you disagree, even if you are not providing reasoning. Professor Humayun Ansari was using "sect" only to imply "denomination" and on this basis including Shia in a list on groups referred to as cults is clearly inappropriate. 80.189.222.110 14:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

References

There are still many entries with unlinked references, esp (salon). I mentioned this a week ago and so far a total of one was fixed. If there is no interest fixing the others I will remove them shortly, along with any entries that have no other references. Gimmetrow 19:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Those were all cited specifically in the past. This version seems to have them. [5]. The methods of showing sources have gones through several revisions and apparently the specific links were lost in the process. -Will Beback 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that version does not have them. Just to pick some that are close together, look at "Rajneesh", "Roch Theriault", "Unification Church" and "Westboro Baptist" - the Salon entries are not linked. That version raises a question - if this list previously divided sources by reliability, why was that lost? It would be some work to re-create. Gimmetrow 22:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I guess we've got to go back even further. Here are the Salon links [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. They're from this version[13].
As for the saga of the organization of this article, it's all in the archives of this talk page. -Will Beback 22:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops, those don't include the groups you mentioned. Lemme dig some more. -Will Beback 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I search on Salon and found these:
Rajneesh -[14]
Roch Theriault -Same article
Unification Church - [15]
Westboro- [16] (though it says "cult-like" so doesn't count).
One reason there are so many Salon references is that they keep their archives open. -Will Beback 22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to edit these in? Gimmetrow 00:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've put them in. -Will Beback 01:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the links are confused somehow, they don't refer to the right things. Too much for me to figure out. Gimmetrow 01:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide an example? -Will Beback 03:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Roch Theriault link doesn't contain either "Roch" or "Theriault". But when I searched for "cult" on the salon link for Raelism, I find "I've been assured it's not a ... cult" and a reference to the "cult of Roch Theriault". Gimmetrow 14:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Salon article about Raelism includes this paragraph:

  • Quebec's more notorious New Age religions include the cult of Roch "Moses" Thériault, a Seventh-Day Adventist who one day saw the light, declared himself "Oint the Eternal" and took his brood to the remote Gaspé Peninsula, where he oversaw amputations, castrations, disinterments of rotting corpses and brawls among the survivors. (Thériault comes up for parole this year.) Then there's the infamous Order of the Solar Temple, a cult founded by a Belgian homeopath whose local branch boasted the former mayor of the town of Richelieu, several journalists and a vice president of the local hydropower utility -- before they committed mass suicide, embarking on that long voyage to Sirius.

The link went to the wrong page of the article, which would have been a bit confusing. -Will Beback 04:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Organisation Proposal

This list currently recognizes two types of sources and divides the list accordingly. I propose sources be divided into two categories

  1. "major media sources" (BBC, Guardian, NYTimes, Wash. Post, Encarta, ABC, Salon)
  2. "minor or other sources" (including semi-official govt. reports, journals, and regional news).

The list of "cults" is then divided into "major media consensus" entries that have at least two references from category 1. All other sourced entries go in a "not major media consensus" part of the list. Gimmetrow 15:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, would be a slight improvement. Eventually, I think we should only keep entries that have multiple and reputable media sources, which specifically describe them as "cults". Relying on "sects" appears to be problematical because of ambiguous usage. 80.189.222.110 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is actually in the definition not the source. If we are to categorise then it should be by source content not by source. For example
      1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4287995.stm contains a report on killings conducted by the Beasts of Satan so they should go under "Violent"
      2. http://archive.salon.com/feb97/news/news970225.html contains no accusations of victimisation only calling Scientology a "wierd cult." It did report on fears that people could be victimised but they were reports of others opinions. So Scientology could fit under "Outside the Mainstream" or "Unaccepted". cairoi 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I fully appreciate that including Scientology in the same list as, for example, terrorist organisations could be inappropriate. If after the list is catagorised by media source, you want to have further catagories, for violent and non-violent groups, then ok. 80.189.13.39 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What we need to organize this list another way, cairoi, is a proposal with clear groupings and criteria for sorting entries into those groups. This list apparently used to be separated into "destructive cults" and "controversial groups." Would someone like to summarize why those groupings were tossed? Also, that they used to exist and don't now doesn't fill me with much optimism about the survival of other orgnisational systems . Gimmetrow 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the existence of any organizations that are considered cults but not considered destructive or abusive in some manner. I would think that the two go hand in hand. Al 17:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cults can be devotional such as the various catholic cults, they may be considerred heretical or unorthodox such as mormons or christian science or they may be violent or victimising such as the Beasts of Satan or the Branch Davidians. Some groups are labelled cults just because orthodox communities don't like them. That act of labelling does not confirm that the group are violent victimisers. But is casts suspicion and may lead to persecution. cairoi 17:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"Destructive cult" is accepted jargon, which refers to outwardly or inwardly violent religious groups. Not all the groups that have multiple and reputable media sources describing them as cults have been described as violent. 80.189.13.39 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You don't get it. This article was created and defended by anti-religious advocates. Its point is the persecution of religious followers. — goethean ॐ 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, gee, Goethean, thank you for that appallingly uncivil attack on your fellow editors. Tell us, when did you decide that Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith was a rule for other people to follow, not for you? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The sources for Sunni and Shia use "sect" in the sense of "denomination", hence currently this article is complete nonsense. The proposal would be a modest improvement. Otherwise, if you are indicating support for deletion, then fine. 80.189.13.39 17:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? And which proposal are you endorsing as a modest improvement? And no, the article is not complete non-sense. It is not an article of dangerous sects it as article of groups referred to as cults and sects irrespective of definition. cairoi 18:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Has Gimmetrow read the archives of this talk page? His proposal is almost identical to a previous organizational scheme. The reason we did away with it is, briefly, that there was no objective way of sorting the media sources. Who defines "major media"? An earlier organization had the entries arranged by their behavior,: deadly, then merely violent or lawbreaking, then nonviolent and peaceful. I think there is some merit to that, but a clear criteria would be needed. Regardles, I don't see any pressing need to re-organize the article. -Will Beback 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have read the archives, and I was surprised that this change met with little discussion. I don't say there is a pressing need for reorganisation either, but I think some other editors feel that "Branch Davidians" and "Sunni" are not cults in the same way, and that this list should address that. Distinguishing by violence would be fine but criteria seemed hard to make work. Gimmetrow 21:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cairio, I was answering Goethean. The proposal I was discussing was Gimmetrow's Organisational Proposal, which is a modest improvement. The inclusion of Shia and Sunni is based purely on sources that use "sect" in the sense of "denomination". Hence this list is nonsensical and either should be deleted or improved. 80.189.79.147 20:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, entirely legitimate usage of "sect" to imply "denomination" is being misconstrued. To imply that Sunni Islam should be considered a cult based on the Commonwealth Year Book, is not appropriate. In the first instance I would suggest we seperate entries that have multiple and reputable media sources, which specifically describes them as "cults". After that, violent organisations could be further subdivided. 80.189.79.147 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Four Pillars

Looking back in the archive2 I see that the groups used to be categorised as Destructive Cult, Alleged Cults, Controversial Groups, and Minority Groups. This was back when the article was called Purported Cults and was considered POV and so was done away with.

We now have a neat system of accepted sources and qualifications for references. If we then categorised the refernces by content the article would provide more information.

I would propose four categories: (1) Devotional, (2) Uncustomary, (3) Intense, (4)Violent. A cult could move up the ladder if the reference contained information placing it in a higher category.

Let me give some examples:

Violent

Groups referred to as committing acts of Violence upon others. Being listed in this section does not indicate if violence is a defining quality of the group.

·····Comments

Will Beback 18:46, 28 June 2006 wrote "easily verifiable violent/nonviolent split." — But maybe "easily verifiable" means merely media and government questionably claimed? For both legal libel and fairness reasons the classification subtitle should read "Violent Allegations" • cairoi 19:13, 28 June 2006 wrote: "Violent would have to have reports of violent activity." Including legal self-defense cases? For example, defining this "Violent" list so as to include Branch Davidians is currently problematic. Some cults are armed for legal self defense with good reason, due to threats from neighbors or the government. Suggest a 'Violent Allegations' definition should be tweaked to 'includes consequential violence from claimed legal self-defense' . I suggest that wording as inclusive of non-religious-cult AIM's actions in the chain of events following their people being regularly killed by suspicious night auto accidents. That wording might also limit disputes by partisans of who 'threw the first spear' 1400 years ago. Milo 23:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Intense

Groups referred to as demanding a high intensity of participation. Being listed in this section does not indicate if control is a defining quality of the group.


Uncustomary

Groups referred to as outside of the mainstream in beliefs or practices. Being listed in this section does not indicate if beliefs or practices may be unwholesome.


Devotional

Groups referred to as systems of worship. Being listed in this section does not indicate if the group is part of a larger faith group.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cairoi (talk • contribs).

Cairo, I understand what qualifies a group to be considered violent or destructive. However, I personally do not understand the distinction between the other 3 groupings. For example, the reference for Mormons is the essentially same as for Antoinism and yet they have been classified differently. Also, I am not sure as to why Scientology and Chen Tao have been classified differently when they apparently have reasonably similar influences. Otherwise, I am genuinely pleased that you have not included Sunni or Shia. Overall, I would suggest just having two categories for violent and non-violent. 80.189.68.250 17:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Do our sources support these distinctions? They seem to be original research. If categories of this type are desired I'd agree with 80.189.68.250: just use the easily verifiable violent/nonviolent split. -Will Beback 18:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
OK you might be right. That still painting large portions with the same brush. What about this.
        1. Devotional means groups which are described a sects and cults in the conventional sense. This would just mention the word cult or sect but provide no comments on off beat beliefs or practices.
        2. Unconventional means the reference may contain mainstream opinions that the group is off centre or off beat. But no expressions of violence.
        3. Violent would have to have reports of violent activity.
Maybe a system like film rating. Sex, Violence, Unconventional Beliefs or Activities, and the G rating of Devotional. I'm not sure if there should be a section for Martyrdom as well.
I don't think it's Original research since the requirments would have to be met.
cairoi 19:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's Original research since the requirments would have to be met.
Who would decide if the requirements are met? How would that decision be made? What is the basis for these distinctions? I don't see how this scheme could avoid original research. -Will Beback 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Overall, I would prefer only to have entries that have multiple and reputable media sources, which specifically describes them as "cults" and just to have the catagories of violent and non-violent. 80.189.68.250 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not at all opposed to attempts to better organize the list, but a simple violent/non-violent distinction is flawed. Take for example the Children of God... I could find 50 articles in 5 minutes that describe them committing often violent acts of criminal abuse against children and others. However, such acts are no longer widespread. Futher, some editors (especially those who are members of the group) would immediately raise questions as to wether the actions of some members (even if they were based on writings of the group's founder) can be used to cast the entire group as violent. --Monger 00:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Will Beback, your argument about original research doesn't hold water. We currently have people deciding what reputable sources are and what fits the criteria of a group. Are there original research: yes and no. If you had more clearly defined criteria would it seem less like OR to you? What could you imagine the criteria to be like that would work? cairoi 22:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, if it isn't original research then what is our source for this characterization:
  • Intense: Groups referred to as demanding a high intensity of participation. Being listed in this section does not indicate if control is a defining quality of the group.
    • Aesthetic Realism (Jewish Times, 2003)
    • Alchoholics Anonymous, Communal/Institutional (Chaz Bufe) (Rutger's Centre of Alcohol Studies)
    • Antoinism (FR) [etc]
I've never heard of "intense" as a description of a category of cults. -Will Beback 22:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The quickest one I can find is http://www.religioustolerance.org/cultintro.htm cairoi 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
That source says something entirely different:
  • The largely secular Anti-Cult Movement (ACM) mainly targets religious groups that make high demands on their membership...Examples of religions targeted by the ACM are the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Two-by-twos. Studies by mental health researchers indicate that the charges of the ACM have little or no merit. We simply refer to these groups as high-intensity or high demand faith groups who expect great dedication from their members.
The writer is saying that the two named groups are not cults, but are "high-intesity faith groups", not "intense cults". Further, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is not a neutral source. -Will Beback 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, . The categorisation can be generated from an algorithm Which would have to be interpretted in order.
IN CASE the following are directly applied to the group by a trusted source
Violence: Referred to as Violent
Demands: Referred to as Demanding
Opinion of unorthodoxy: Referred to as Unorthodox
None of the above: Referred to as Devotional
As you can see it's not categorising the faith groups but references. Perhaps groups could appear twice under different categories if the references conflict.
I see four advantages in using some sort of system like this.
      1. The references are visually qualified to the reader
      2. It highlights the content of the references and ignores actual judgement of the groups
      3. It informs the reader that not all references to cults mean the same thing
      4. It highlights differences in opinions between sources.
All of which are ignored by this list at this time. And I don't think that is Original Research. It's just a categorisation system like the requirments in the header.
BTW, Do we still use OCRT on this list? cairoi 06:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
And why do we need such a complicated, unsourced scheme? Alphabetization is sufficient. -Will Beback 06:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This list will always have contentions some of which are overcome by four advantages listed above. I think it's actually quite simple. No more than four categories. Interpretible criteria. cairoi 06:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure the article can be improved but this seems like too much effort for too little benefit. -Will Beback 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Those four advantages answer the majority of complaints that people have against this page and which have got it nominated for deletion so many times. I think that's greate value for effort. And it really didn't take me long to do that first bit. I'm happy to review all the links and put them on the talk page for discussion. cairoi 17:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I've just looked over the last three AfDs and I don't see anyone suggesting that the article should be deleted because it isn't subdivided into Intense vs Devout cults. Again, I don't see what problem this proposal would fix. -Will Beback 03:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You didn't look well enough. I've assembled a quick list. If I had time to go through all the AfD's and all the Talk pages I would but the point is that every objector who comes new to this article says the same thing: "That group does not belong with all these groups because it's not that kind of cult." Well they do belong because cult/sect/secte/sekte is a complicated term which requires a more sophisticated list. And really the list is currently NPOV because putting certain groups next to each other insinuates negative qualities which may or may not be there.
I think that a list based on the four pillars with the four advantages will solve a lot of these problems. For now have a look at the quick list of objections I've put together.
                          • Pjacobi objected that it was a list of "a list of nearly everything, which can by linked to the word cult (in any meaning)".
                            • I think we need categories to impose structure on a wonderfully messy term
                          • Wickethewok said 'term "cult" seems to have inherently negative connotation.'
                            • I think that we need to show that there are positive and neutral definitions of cult as well. You can't do that with just Violent and Non-violent categories.
                          • Antaeus Feldspar many false negatives and false positives
                            • I think that editors have different goals in mind and allowing space for a fair representation of all groups will fix these objections.
                          • Jossi objects "lack of consistency"
                            • I think that the lack of consistency stems from the inclination of editors to make judgements based on either a popular flavor of cultishness or a complete acceptance of all definitions.
                          • Pjacobi further objects there "no consensus of editors"
                            • I think that if we can attain consensus on a simple set of categories then there will be space for sources which both support and oppose the definitions.

<---So that raises the question - does this satisfy those editors? Also, we still need NPOV & NOR categories. Is there a cult researcher who has a scheme we can adopt? Picking random words would not be encyclopedic, and it would raise the same objections as our last scheme. -Will Beback 07:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, Really the categories I'm proposing are not categorising the cults but reports. So, experts in categorising cults would not be the best fit for most options. They usually only deal with groups which are considered Violent or Controlling. We include all uses of the word cult. A dictionary definition would probably work better. But encyclopedia readers may be interested in how the groups qualify to be a cult. They may expect violence or control which is why they need to have this list explained. Below I'm detailing references supporting the categories I've put forth:
CULTS IN POPULAR IMAGINATION
  • Step 1. VIOLENT...OK I think there are a few people who can see the list being divided into reports of violent behavior and non-violent and that being encyclopedic.
  • Step 2. DEMANDING...Steve Hassan has the | BITE system which shows the demands or controls a scary cult can put on a person.
CULTS IN MORE FORMAL OR TRADITIONAL SENSES
  • Step 3. UNCONVENTIONAL...M-W.com shows that a cult may be "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents". These are judgements from more mainstream groups. Several of the references only contain statements of unconventionality.
  • Step 4. DEVOTIONAL...Those references that do not fit in the above filters would then fall under a catch all. This is supported by the following M-W.com definitions. A "formal religious veneration"; "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents";

As I'm going through the references, Gimmetrow, I'd like to categorise them on the talk page for all of you to review. If the results look good I'd like to implement. You have some specific links identified which you'd like to delete. Could you put them here so we can deal with them right away?

cairoi 00:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
So what is your source for using these terms to categorize sources? Why are you picking "demanding" instead of "intense" or "controlling"? Secondly, based on Pjacobi's response this proposal doens't seem to address his concerns. Have we heard whether it will address the concerns of the others you list? -Will Beback 01:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Look Will, I'm trying to use the Wiki NPOV and fair and sympathetic tone principles. Not absolutely every word in the article has to be sourced. Demanding is my attempt to allow for an accurate portrayal of that level of cult while maintaining a fair and sympathetic tone. What would you suggest.
Also, Pjacobi is just ticked off with this list entirely. I had wrongly quoted him in one place but he had essentially said the same thing on his talk page. I can't be 100% sure but I believe this at least partially answers his objections to the list. We may never make everyone happy but at least we will have tried to be fair and have a well sourced answer to further objections. Would you like to see how it shapes up on the talk page first? Can you think of any improvements? cairoi 06:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Clarification (I'm too tired and tight on time to do much here, and the few mouseclicks I invest in Wikipedia are better invensted in reverting and blocking the physics cranks, but..): Above the following opinion was attritbuted to me Pjacobi further objects there "no consensus of editors".
That's totally wrong. My statement was no consensus of editors can trump policies (citing some discussion on wikien-l), which means: This list has over long periods a consensus of editors (e.g. when I don't contribute), but the editors of an article, even if agreeing with each other, cannot overrrule general Wikipedia policy.
Pjacobi 14:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I apologise for misquoting you in that instance. You did however say on your talk page "Cult is a very unscientific label and for that reason not used by the majority of affected academic disciplines (sociology, psychology, and theology). Therefore the list will have to stay on the side of "often judged to be", as no consensus can be found." cairoi 00:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This are two different consensuses (uh, sp?): There is no consensus in Real Life what's meant by "cult" or even if it is a usefull term. OTOH there was/is a consensus of Article Authors (or Owners) that this list makes perfect sense. --Pjacobi 08:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
So, how do you feel about categorising the references to groups as cults by four ways: Violent, Demanding, Unconventional and Devotional. Would that help you express that cult is a multi-facetted term? Would it help the list make more sense? Do you need to see it on the talk page before you can make a judgement? cairoi 13:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
If this is just going round in circles, would a request for comment be appropriate? 80.189.77.97 15:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Article content dispute RfC has a very high percentage of not getting anything achieved. --Pjacobi 18:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
That is true, but when we follow formal procedures in dispute resolution then at least then we can proceed to the next step. And in addition, it gives others evidence that Wikipedia procedures do not work. Andries 10:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Question about a reputable source

I must say three things before I continue with my comments:

  • I agree that the Washington Post is a reputable source.
  • I am a member of The Way International.
  • This is meant for discussion not argument. I have worked closely on the TWI page and strived very hard to keep it NPOV.

Having stated all that, the WP source, main page says:

This special report brings together 50 years of Post photographs and news clips about some of the religious and other movements whose techniques have drawn criticism. It includes an annotated chronology tracing trends among these groups, along with analysis and opinion about methods used by many of these groups.

The Way International is listed on that page. This is what it says:

This Christian fundamentalist group, founded in the 1940s, was led by Victor Paul Wierwille (left), a former radio minister. It recruited young people and grew into one of the largest new religious groups in the United States, continuing to attract followers even after its leader died in 1985.

I don't see one single allegation of cultish behaviour in that article at all. Now, yes the editors did include it in their list. And it isn't our job to do OR...but it strikes me as odd given all the other details listed about other groups. Then when you click on their link for photos and other articles you get blank pages. There is simply no information listed on this otherwise reputable source. This is not intended for anything else than to get a converstation going on this. Thanks! Lsjzl 20:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Lsjzl! I wonder if you noticed something that I did, which might explain the discrepancy: the page you're referring to ([17]) is an index page; the header above each short capsule description (like the one you quoted) is actually a link to an archive of previous stories and photos on the group. Unfortunately, it appears that while the index page is still up, the archive links aren't. Obviously they were working at some point in the past, so the reference might once have pointed to a valid reference. Unfortunately, if it did, the information seems to be lost now. =( -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Granted, or should I say, point. Whatever, haha, my point in responding is to say that you are correct. It is just perhaps frustrating to see no info that even slightly reads negatively in the only link there is. Although I am sure someone from the WP, if made aware of broken links might just take a second and correct them? Good morning Antaeus! Lsjzl 13:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Two topic shift comments from here refactored to 'Multiple and reputable sources'

Multiple and reputable sources

1st two comments refactored from 'Question about a reputable source'

If we agree that entries should have multiple and reputable media sources, this would get round the problem. 80.189.68.250 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading this article for the first time, it appears that with the possible exceptions of Antoinism, Landmark Forum, and Sukyo Mahikari, none of the cults named in (FR) are actually cults, and for at least two, there are other references available. As there is controversy over the inclusion in that report of many of the "sectes" it named, and possible confusion over the multiple meanings of "sectes", I propose that (FR) be stricken as a reference, and that any item on the list only referred to in that source be removed. Argyriou 22:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The inclusion of the French report is questionable. Never the less it is interesting. Maybe it could be separated from the media sources. cairoi 03:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading Lsjzl's account of technical unfairness due to broken links at WP, I'm now leaning toward requiring multiple (at least two?) reputable sources (yet to be defined) for listing a "cult" and "sect or foreign word contextually translating as cult". That would also minimize the FR "sectes"="denominations" issue. However, I'm opposed to the slippery slope of arbitrarily striking FR or any other reputable source as a reference. That would lead to clever cult leaders striking their unfavorable reports one by one on endless arbitrary pretexts. Milo 00:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding new items from Category:Cults

I'd like to migrate several groups from Category:Cults to this list as part of a reorganization of that list (see Category:Cults:Talk and the discussion at CfD). There is a lot of history behind the creation of this list so information on the protocol for doing so and/or assistance in moving these items would ease the process. Antonrojo 23:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the contemporary religions from this category into List of Religions. 80.189.233.141 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

References

What should we do about the references? They don't contain enough information to maintain their integrity over time and as the links change. Should we try something like this?

(Goldman, M. (25 May 1999). Monumental Man. Baltimore JewishTimes.com)
"'I think that [Siegel] was a cult leader,'...said Steve Hassan."
"...Said Mr, Hassan, 'You have a new set of beliefs that are a mirror image of Eli Siegel. You are constantly being manipulated by guilt and fear.'"

cairoi 15:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Merge Proposal

Hi, I am proposing this article should be merged into List of new religious movements, keeping the criteria and format of the NRM article. 80.189.75.153 18:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you propose to identify list members to keep and which to jetison? cairoi 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The two lists serve different purposes and have different inclusion criteria. While the list of new religious movements would probably benefit from inclusion of most every group on this list (and that should be done independent of your proposal), you are essentially proposing the removal of this article, which has been voted against numerous times. --Monger 22:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I spend a lot of time reading Wikipedia. This has to be the worst page I’ve ever seen. I vote for its deletion. Because some media source labels something as a cult it gets included? What’s the point of that? Mainstream? A “high degree of tension with the surrounding society combined with novel religious beliefs”? So we have Sai Baba, Quakers, Branch Davidians, and Wikipedia on the same list? Sorry to tell you that Sai Baba is quite mainstream in India (or at least was), and Sai Baba types are well within the “Hindu” umbrella and have been for millennia. Maybe they shouldn’t be, but that’s not the point. Richard Nixon was a Quaker, and it is impossible for anyone to make this list objective or useful.
A new religious movement? Just because a religious institution shows up in your little corner of the cosmos doesn’t make it new, a cult nor meritorious of the malignancy intended by those euphemisms.
Doesn’t anyone get that the inclusion of Wikipedia shows the foolishness on this endeavor? Jiva Goswami 02:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I STRONGLY oppose this. Implying that all NRMs are cults is not a very POV stance. The two lists have nothing to do with each other. Deleuze 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The word "cult" has a specific meaning which is narrower than "new religious movement". This list is flawed, but merging it will not serve to improve matters. Argyriou 22:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Reverting each other edits, seldom accomplishes anything. Please discuss here. Otherwise the page will be protected until such time in which editors can agree on how to move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm new to this. This page can never a neutral point of view. It is flawed by its existance. Or it should be an exceptionally long list. Why aren't Catholics on the list, what about Christadelphians? Some media outlet lists a group as a cult, so it gets on the list??? How foolish is that? The point is that it is impossible to be reasonable about this. What steps does one need to take to push for this page's deletion?Jiva Goswami 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this page survived the Wikipedia process for deletion twice: See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_purported_cults/3. If you find a reliable source that refers to Catholicism or Christadelphians as a "cult" you can add these as well. Read the criteria for inclusion at the top of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There are some Christian sects on the page, most notably Baptists. Maintaining this article is admittedly a difficult prospect, but using only reliable secondary sources is (IMO) the only fair, neutral way of doing it. I can understand why you don't think the Krishnas are a cult, but plenty of people have said they are. If you think this is somehow biased in favor of Abrahamic religions, feel free to change that - but not by deleting information you disagree with. Find some sources saying Catholics are a cult and add them. I don't care. But if you continue to remove references to the Krishnas, I will interpret that as vandalism. I hope we can settle this amenably. Deleuze 04:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? This page can never be objective and neutral. It is religious and cultural bias from the onset. It is impossible to have a neutral point of view when the title is a derogatory slur. I saw the talk about Devotional Cults. "Cult" is not being used in that respect if we have the Branch Dravidians and the People's Church in the list.

It is an odd, arbitrary proposition that a religious group can be listed along with the Branch Dravidians and the People's Church based on the writing of a journalist. I have no problem with the term cult. It is used in a number of Krsna books. However, being listed with the other groups in just unacceptable. Many of the references are from www.rickross.com. Nothing rational and objective can be derived from that website. It is clearly and highly biased. Yet it is a primary source. What does this say about this page, and the motivation behind it? It doesn't take from my point that RickRoss.com references other "mainstream" media.

From www.religioustolerance.org [18]

Quotations about cults: "...one person's cult is another's religion; all religions begin life as cults. An alternative definition is that a cult is a religion which you happen to dislike." Anthony Campbell

"Cult is a word without much use outside the realm of religious mudslinging." Philip Kennicott

"When someone uses the word 'cult,' it usually says more about them than the group," J. Gordon Melton, founder and director of The Institute for the Study of American Religion.

"It's easy to tell the difference - a cult is someone else's religion. Corollary: "A fanatic is someone who believes something more strongly than you do." Jim Heldberg

"I have often thought that the difference between a cult and a religion is an IRS ruling." Ron Barrier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JivaGoswami (talk • contribs) 22:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. All of those are arguments to be zealously clear about the criterion for inclusion on this list: popular reference towards an organization as a cult. This is not a list of cults: it is a broad list of groups that have been at certain times considered cults by a general group of people. Still, I have no idea what you are trying to prove here - the Krishnas have been considered cultists by many many people. The role of this page is clearly laid out in the disclaimer, and your reversions have been consistently going against that. Removing ISKON because you think they're good guys or whatever is pure POV. Deleuze 06:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It points to the limits and failings of democracy. A rediculous page is kept based on votes. I delete ISKCON because that's where my interest is. However, I'm not arguing that ISKCON is or isn't a cult (I'm pretty pissed off at the organization right now in fact). I arguing that this page is arbitrary and mean spirited. Lumping these groups together shows a serious lack of discrimination. A disclaimer doesn't make it right. It's like all those user agreements that nobody reads when they install software.
As another commentator asked, why stop there? List of people referred to as racists. List of presidents refered to as liars. List of people who's mother have been refered to as fat, stupid or ugly. Jiva Goswami 08:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The word cult is used in all its many forms on this list. Maybe there's a better way to make that clear to the reader. cairoi 14:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I still think you're missing the point, but considering that this is a fairly frequently raised objection, I propose to put it to a RFC. Deleuze 09:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, re: your last revert: it is incredibly easy to cite LN - just cite the article it pulls up. I don't know what you are complaining about. Deleuze 06:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
LN is a subcription service, how can it be linked? You need to have subcription. It has the text of the article, but it may or may not be available in it's original source.Jiva Goswami 08:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there's an option to "cite this article" via Lexis that will format a full citation for whatever you select. Wikipedia doesn't rely solely on internet sources (I should hope it doesn't) and I think plenty of people have at least academic universe access to check references. Deleuze 09:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sort of a different topic, but I'm putting it here because it concerns ISKCON. First thing, it was decided a long time ago that Rick Ross is not a reliable source for this article, but articles from other newspapers archived at the Rick Ross site are acceptable sources. Second, I still find that not all sources are as good as others - despite whatever bias they may contain, I just don't find an article in a regional newspaper to carry the same weight as something from the BBC or NY Times. The French report has received a lot of criticism, and it seems second-tier as a source. Third, there are sources that have no links, like the Salon entry for ISKCON. If a source is available on the net and a direct link is not provided, it's the net equivalent of giving an entire encyclopedia as a reference; you can't realistically look it up. I listed a bunch of these about 4 weeks ago and a reminder 2 weeks ago; it's time they were deleted. Gimmetrow 20:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yay! get rid of them :) I agree that the French report seems second rate. Maybe this list would be better if we only accepted first rate sources. cairoi 22:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Uh, well... I'm sure there are plenty of NY Times, BBC or Washington Post class references for ISKCON and the term cult if someone cared to look. Rick Ross will have something I’m sure. But a reporter for the Toronto Globe and Mail shouldn't have the last word on who's a cult anyway. It's just silly. Let's be honest. This is a list of cults, no matter what the disclaimer says. Why else were people upset that Wikipedia was on the list? Because it shouldn't be listed as a cult because of one facetious op-ed piece. But hey, rules are rules right?Jiva Goswami 01:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Where are you from Jiva? The Globe and Mail is Canada's Times. Just a lot thinner. cairoi 05:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I sort of agree with you on this. Journalists aren't really reliable sources for labelling groups as cults - we should ideally use only scholarly sources for this and precisely define what we mean by "cult." Deleuze 05:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Come on people! This is exactly my point. Not about journalists and scholars, but that the disclaimer is window dressing. You are not listing "groups referred to as cults", you are listing cults! Why do you need scholars and a precise definition of a cult? It shouldn't matter what a cult is if all you care about is if a tier one media source references a group as a cult! Shame! Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. I'm in the thick of scholars all day, and the reality is that they just talk prettier and longer. This page is a scar!

If you really believe that, then why bother having wikipedia? Nothing is NPOV then, and the whole experiment is a sham. Deleuze 06:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Well that might be a good discussion on another page, but smells of sophism here. If you're going to have a list of groups that another small group of people have decided are dangerous cults then go for it and defend it as such. Group X is a dangeous cult because they drank spiked cool aid. This other one because they don't accept Jesus as Lord. This other one because they have a bunch of wifes at once. Group Z because they have brown buggies rather the black buggies that decent people have.
But the fake disclaimer serves as a good debate loop. If anyone complains, just point them to the disclaimer and wash your hands. --"Weak as water!" (Slocombe)
I find it difficult to discern the argument behind your rhetoric. Deleuze 07:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC (the next one)

I've entered this list at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy, as several new voices here complain about its existence. --Pjacobi 10:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment
I have to admit I'm not sure what I think about this list, though it's somewhat amusing to see that I'm a member of at least two (and along with Sunnis and Shiites, I suppose I'm part of a very big club). Perhaps change the title and preface to make clearer what the list actually is, namely a record of statements of the cult status of various groups by large media outlets and government reports. (Nah, that's not it, but you get my meaning?) SB Johnny 14:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This list says as much about the labeller, as about the labelled one, you mean? I'd agree. --Pjacobi 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yup, more or less. SB Johnny 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
In other words, List of groups labelled cults by reliable sources. If one follows NPOV and NOR, then reporting the statements of others is the only allowable thing. Deleuze 00:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What about list of impopular small religious groups, or list of groups that triggered the cult wars (i.e. Unification Church, Hare Krishna, and Children of God and a few more). Andries 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Do Not Merge. Keep and fix. There needs to be a somewhat better definition of cults, and the groups only referenced in (FR) should be de-listed. The word "cult" has a meaning in English which is narrower than "secte" in French; the French report is capitalizing on the indistinction in French. Argyriou 22:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that in cases where the French or Belgian reports are the only sources the names should be dropped. A list that places the Peoples Temple practically next to the Quakers is close to ludicrous. Even the French Report itself does not do anything like this. On the use of the word I think it does have some use in narrow circumstances. A group that makes all major decisions for their members, separates members from society, encourages paranoia about enemies, commits violent crimes, and is led by a charismatic leader fits "cult" better than most other words. Although a cult can also be any group devoted to a certain saint or devoted to a rock star or even a film.--T. Anthony 07:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment
"Cult" is the "N-Word" for religions that find themselves in the minority because they are small or disconnected from their base. We "cults" can use the word ourselves. There are some pretty good jokes with it. But when others use the word as a derogatory slur, as a way to band suicidal groups, and groups produced from the delusions of the mentally ill, with groups that have several millennia of history, culture and expression, it really raises hackles. This isn't satire or self-mocking here, it's an encyclopedia.

I more easily use the term cult in its devotional sense. What's wrong with a few people who are really into their religious expression? Whether it's the basement bible group or the people dancing and singing in the street? Time has shown that there sometimes IS a problem with that, but why stigmatize everyone for Jim Jones? Or some whacked out Pope in the Middle Ages?

If Wikipedia had a page listing "Good and Bad Niggers" and "Known Nigger Lovers" from sources in the popular media and literature, I think is missing the point by a long mile to argue who is a good nigger or what media sources are valid sources for this endeavor. What does it matter??? We need to argue the existence of the stupid list. The list is flawed from it start. It is wrong by its existence. It has no value but for bigots to aggregate and agitate. Vote for deletion? No it’s wrong, just delete it.

So stepping off my soap box, what about "List of controversial religious groups", or maybe just "list of controversial groups" dropping the religious? I would still be annoyed with being on any list with the Reverend Jim, AA and that predatory scourge known as Wikipedia, but it wouldn't curl my tail like a “Cult list” does. Jiva Goswami 01:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"why stigmatize everyone for Jim Jones?"
Never minding Wikipedia, it's because global citizens watch and worry with good reason that you or I could somehow become the next Jim Jones, as a member of a newer or smaller religion with charismatic leadership. By comparison, larger or older religions typically have unavoidable disciplinary procedures like heresy trials to prevent criminal religious zealotry. Furthermore, Peoples Temple progressed through the stage of an annoying cult (so reported) — therefore you can't assure global citizens that your merely annoying new religion is ok because they haven't killed anyone yet. Never mind Wikipedia, global citizens don't believe you can guarantee that. The very fact that larger/older religion discipline somewhat failed in the Peoples Temple case, has made citizens demand more cult watching, not less. I sympathize that the religion you are supporting was judged annoying for a couple of decades and may have to remain on the global citizens' cult list for a few more. Christian Science went through this too. But if you accept the law of karma (the single lifetime, sow as reap, what goes around comes around type) then rejoice: spiritual law is being uncomfortably manifested and thus proved true. Milo 05:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Karma doesn't justify bad behavior: "I stole your car because it was your karma, I'm just God's instrument giving you your due". Didn't work for Charles Manson either.Jiva Goswami 07:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that — playing God badly is itself bad karma. Camden Benares wrote in Zen Without Zen Masters that karma is the force exerted by one's actions. For a couple of decades or so, the collective force of actions of several western and eastern-derived new religions was "socially annoying", largely due to their competitiveness (e.g., mass begging at airports and persuading converts to give them all possessions). The karmic reaction was their identification as cults by global citizens, which reaction did get reported in reputable mass media. Milo 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Karma is a law of nature that also applies to social groups, even way beyond Wikipedia all the way up to the Global Citizens. It still in no way justifies poor behavior. This list of cults should not be on Wikipedia because it can never have a neutral point of view. It is said that this is not a list of cults, but you say that because we deserve it (karma) then we should be on the list? Come on, can't have it both ways!Jiva Goswami 00:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ahh! Well Mr. Milo and Mr. Deleuze, thank you for dropping the pretext of listing "groups referred to as cults" and stating the fact that this is really just a list of cults. The fake "disclaimer" should be dropped and the article title should also reflect the narrow minded cultural imperialism that it is.
Then we can expand the list to include the Amish, to reflect their thieving, murderous and seditious roots in the German Anabaptists. And of course the Catholics for the sins of their historical past, Nazi connections, crusades, etc, etc. Seriously, it's the younger, new religions like the followers of Christ and Muhammad that seem to have the vast majority of violent and otherwise abhorrent behaviors in the name of religion? Why pick on the old guard groups that have been around for many, many years prior to the new kids?
Of course it's not really the religions that are the problem. Let's get a little bigoted here. It's the people in them. It's the Jim Jones', the Mary Baker Eddys, the Joseph Rutherfords, the Joseph Smiths, the ben Ladens screwing up the religions that's the problem. Even Vaisnavas (Krishnas) didn't have much of these problems until it came to the west and spread amongst...The Christians! When you preach amongst a certain culture, your results tend to include the foibles of that culture.Jiva Goswami 06:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
While I've seen and read occasional abuse complaints by ex-Amish, the Amish don't compete (including they don't proselytize), and therefore are rarely if ever named as a cult in mass media. However, if you can find them verifiably named as a cult by a reputable source in government or media, they can and should be put on the list, same as Baptists and Quakers. • As to your idea that questionable leaders are the problem rather than their new religions, there is an understanding of life that all living manifestations require both seed and fertile soil. In this example, problem cults' existence requires both problem charismatic leaders and their willing problem followers. Milo 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It’s not just the leaders it’s nearly everyone. If I had mentioned some regular guy Way International follower, you wouldn’t have known him.
Amish are great and I admire them quite a bit. I’ve had a friendly relationship with several for 3 or 4 years until I moved. I’ve used them as positive examples on numerous occasions and still do to this day. If you wanted a critical analysis of their belief system based on my POV, that’s another not so pretty story and we don’t do that here (or do we?).
I bring up the Amish because it helps to illustrate the foolishness of this page. The Anabaptists have a terrible history. They were persecuted in Europe in part for some pretty darn good reasons. They did some serious stuff. So if we make our cult criteria: history of violence, sedition, too intense, proselytizers, child abuse, female abuse, follower abuse (financial, sexual, physical, emotional), wears funny cloths, relations and attitudes towards non-believers, etc. We must include the Amish (not on every criterion).
Yet, if anyone knows any Amish, they clearly don’t belong on a negative list of cults! Unless you’re a bigot, a zealot of another persuasion (brown buggy maybe) or some other ax grinder that is.
So who decides that? Who decides the criteria, who decides how long before we forget past sins? Who decides the intangibles? What exact thread of history and disciplic lineage separate the Amish from some of their ancestors, and why does that make them OK or not OK. A reporter? A scholar? The global citizens??? Shouldn’t on Wikipedia. It’s hopelessly and irretrievably POV.
If my church approves of homosexual marriage, I can’t tolerate that so I break off with a few other families and buy a pastor that gives me a God that I can like. Who’s the deviant? Depends on the point of view of the arbiter. POV!
There is no cult delineating criteria that can be acceptable on Wikipedia! Jiva Goswami 01:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


I think you're being a bit insulting to Western religions. There were groups in Asia that caused violence before Christianity ever reached their nations. For example the Yellow Turbans. Violent movements can happen in any culture experiencing stress. Also I get the sense you feel the list is biased against non-Abrahamic religions, but I don't see that. There are many mainstream Abrahamic religions on this list. For example Baptists, Quakers, Shi'a Islam, and Sunni Islam. Essentially that means Ismaili and Ibadi are the only recognized forms of Islam not on the list.--T. Anthony 07:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I really don't know what you are saying here. If you think this list is biased in favor of older Abrahamic religions, then CHANGE that. I am more concerned with following a uniform guideline and using reliable sources than proving some point. Deleuze 07:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This whole page is insulting to religion in general. Since I live in the west, my cultural context is the west and I'm more familiar with the deviations of the dominant culture. I mention Amish as I know them and have lived amongst them. It's wrong to include them in a list with the People's Temple. But are they a cult? Probably by popular definition. But where do we draw the line? Answer: We shouldn't in an encyclopedia. There is no objective criteria, nor even a decent working one on what is a cult. Scholar, shmolar. Just subjective interpretation based on our particular conditioning and world view. To arbitrarily decide a criteria based on a context colored by our conditioning and then apply it as if it were objective to my or someone else’s religion is... well, cultural imperialism.Jiva Goswami 08:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: please quit with the veiled insults and assumptions of bad faith. I'm not engaging in cultural imperialism and I could care less about your personal religious beliefs. Deleuze 07:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleuze, you say "This is not a list of cults" (as you have) and "Journalists aren't really reliable sources for labelling groups as cults - we should ideally use only scholarly sources for this and precisely define what we mean by cult." (as you also have). Those two statements do not go together. Is this a list of cults or not? Forgive me if this controdiction is unintentional on your part, but given the context of a list of cults, the leap to bad faith is a short one.Jiva Goswami 08:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Yes, that is a contradiction. I guess what I think is that this page has encyclopedic value in some form, but I acknowledge the difficulties involved in maintaining and organizing it. They may even be insurmountable in an NPOV way. Let me think about this. Deleuze 19:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

On 06:56, 11 July 2006 Jiva Goswami wrote: "Mr. Milo and Mr. [.......], thank you for dropping the pretext of listing "groups referred to as cults" and stating the fact that this is really just a list of cults." Please be factual in debate. On 05:57, 11 July, I specifically did not state anything about "List of groups referred to as cults" -- by twice declaring a context that no careful reader could miss: "Never minding Wikipedia, it's because global citizens watch..." / "Never mind Wikipedia, global citizens don't..." Milo 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me I was being reactive. I could have responded better. However, what is your point about the “global citizens” then? It seems you say that the global citizens are doing their duty to maintain a list of cults and that my group deserves to be on it because of its previous actions? And if we’re good for a few years straight that the global citizens will relax their attitude and cut us some slack?
Well, do it on www.GlobalCitizensCultList.com. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should NOT succumb to such blatant and over the top POV. Is this a list of cults or not? I say it is, you (Milo) say it is, as such it’s POV and should be dust bin’ed or substantially change at the top level! Jiva Goswami 00:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've collected a number of your comments on this page into one edit area here for my replies:

  • "Is this a list of cults or not? I say it is, you (Milo) say it is," No, I don't say that, and I deny that this article is a simple List of Cults. The scholarly answer is that it may superficially resemble one, but technically it is not such. On Wikipedia, "List of groups referred to as cults" is indeed a rules based list of government-media references to cults. The easy proof is that master cult-lister Rick Ross would never assemble a such a list to include Baptists, Quakers, and Sunnis.
  • "the global citizens are doing their duty to maintain a list of cults and that my group deserves to be on it because of its previous actions?" It does appear that is their judgment. "Well, do it on www.GlobalCitizensCultList.com." If done by an NGO, that would not be a reputable source, though some reputable newspaper could write about it, and this article's list could refer to cults mentioned in the newpaper report. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should NOT succumb to such blatant and over the top POV." Many, many people misunderstand that Wikipedia constantly reports Points of View — it is the reporting of the Points of View that must be neutral. NPOV reporting includes the disclaimers that many NRMs don't want to be on the list. I suggest another disclaimer (but don't know how to verify it) that global citizens have repeatedly instructed government they want "cults" watched (because no one knows for sure which cults might turn dangerous). I think it would also be NPOV to disclaim that some global citizens and religions will inappropriately and perhaps insultingly apply the cult label to their slightly annoying new religious competitors. What are global citizens' definition of a cult? If you press them with all the defining issues named on this talk page, IMHO they won't cave, they'll retreat with a cult paraphrasing of the late Justice Potter Stewart's defintion of porn: "I know it when I see it."
  • "Who decides the criteria" Out in the world, those things are decided by social evolution, and the current state of social evolution is decided by interactions between scholars, power brokers, and stake holders. On Wikipedia editors try to neutrally report the current state of that social evolution.
  • "who decides how long before we forget past sins?" If an example helps, the turning point away from cult-like references to Christian Science was the founding of the Christian Science Monitor in 1879. Mary Baker Eddy died in 1910, and I don't know what CS's reputation was by then, though IIRC from a PBS documentary, M.B.E was fairly quiet in her final decades. By the 1960's Christian Science was still widely disapproved of for their anti-medical practices, but they were no longer considered a cult.
  • "If the airport accosters have a permit and stay in their approved areas, then they're not a cult?" In my proposal (media-referred-cults-legal), they should not be Wiki reportable as a cult -- but global citizens and other Wiki editors may think or consense otherwise. "Do they become one when the permit expires and they forget to renew it. Then a week later when they straighten it out, they aren't a cult anymore?" That depends their luck of whether (1) they get publicly confronted by police, or get administratively ordered (to leave the airport), or get sanctioned (pay a fine), AND (2) that confrontation/order/sanction is findably reported by a reputable source (government or mass media).
  • "Lawsuits cost money, therefore they aren't done lightly? We're really stamping out this "POV/this is a cult list/no it's not" problem with a florish." You may not be impressed with this approach, but defining difficult social problems in terms of law and money has traditionally bounded these issues by so-called legal bright lines, to which clear rules are more easily applied. The technical reason is that both law and money are defined very precisely, so by analogy it's like measuring the strata of cults with a millimeter ruler instead of an inch ruler.
  • "Karma ... in no way justifies poor behavior." Karma also justifies nothing at all since karma is a non-moral force, being the spiritual equivalent of Newton's Third Law. "police actions against [Selma Alabama marchers] are just the marcher's karma coming back at them, right?" Yes, that's my understanding of Benares' karma teaching. The marchers prepared for a brutal reaction as Ghandi had taught. It was a game of karmic one-upsmanship, since the police and state then got their karmic payback in the form of federalized troups again marching within the old south's War Between the States territory. Then the South turned Republican to this day, to defeat the Democrats who sent the troups.
  • "... ["List of groups referred to as cults"] can never have a neutral point of view." "Never" is a long time — perhaps List of groups referred to as cults will eventually improve. Milo 10:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change and sourcing

If this article is to be of any value, I think the sourcing does need a bit of an overhaul. I think the French report should go, as others above have mentioned. I also think that pure journalistic sources shouldn't be used either - we should rely only on topic-specific experts. Sort of the way the page is split up into different sections now, but remove the "media and government sources" section and expand all the others.

Jiva, would this be an acceptable way to go for you? If we attempt to make it clear that "cult" has many different meanings and is often used in a purely slanderous way, would that help? Or are you opposed to the very idea of a list like this? Deleuze 07:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Repeating myself, "Cult" is a pejorative term when used to band groups as diverse as Tea clubs and the People's Temple together. New to whom? Odd to whom? Drop the term cult and call the page Controversial Groups or Controversial Religious Groups or some such. Then have the list have a somewhat inclusive criteria with little on the page commentary. Forget the devotional, violent, intense or whatever embellishments and categorizations. Just the list.
Then if somebody wants to make sure the world is safe from tomorrow's Jim Jones or Sai Baba, then go to the page of the Moonies or the Hari's or whatever and put your concerns up and defend them.
That's not allowed as "controversial" is seen as POV, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial religious leaders.--T. Anthony 07:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
In case you're curious what was on that list you can see List of convicted or indicted religious leaders which incorporated most of it. Likewise Cult suicide and Destructive cult deals with narrower versions of "cult" than this. I think I'd favor two or more sources being required in this list and those sources being respected journals if possible--T. Anthony 08:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jiva. Could I ask you to look at List of Religions and comment on whether we need to have different articles for new religious movements and cults. I personally think we probably don't. If you agree and want to be involved, the task is to find a way to get there. This have been tried by proposing deletion and merging on more than one occasion. Hopefully, the request for comment by Pjacobi will break the deadlock. 80.189.225.114 14:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It'd be possible to create other articles with different criteria. This article has a sensible criteria already. An adjustment that I'd think worth discusing would be dropping the word "Sect" from the criteria. I'm very opposed to removing entries with the media references, as those are the basis of the article. -Will Beback 18:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article has sensible criteria and that the list is interesting. But I don't think that dropping the word Sect would be helpful. It would cut out all the european sources. Maybe if the use of cult/sect to mean denomination or theological division from an orthodox religion were eliminated the list would be more focussed. This ventures into the realm of murky definitions but would make more sense than just dropping an entire continent.
Really when people object to this list it is because their view is narrowed to wicked cults and sects while the words cult and sect have broad and varied meaning. It makes more sense to me to specifically filter for the assumed meanings. cairoi 21:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Upon further consideration, I retract my previous stance. I think the word "cult" has become unusably POV (in English, at any rate) by its use as a slur. Even including disclaimers and explanations leaves an undesirable bias in the reader's mind by the very use of the word "cult." I think instead we should use this page as a portal to further lists that are more specific and less normative: maybe things like List of devotional groups, List of new religious movements, List of violent religious groups. Maybe even a list of groups that have popularly been called cults in a derogatory fashion, if someone can come up with a less unwieldy name. As it is, this seems just to be a list of groups people dislike and have insultingly called a cult. Deleuze 21:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I think that Controversial Religious Groups really is closer to what this list ought to be. I hear that "Controversial" is POV, but certainly it's better than cult. I wouldn't particularly mind my religion listed as controversial, both because it is, and because many other groups, some mainstream, some not, are controversial and can be listed. What's wrong with a fairly inclusive list.
If controversial is POV, then a "list of groups referred to as cults" by media, scholars, Rick Ross or whoever, just shunts the POV and the controversy off the pages of Wikipedia and creates only pretence of objectivity. If we can't do "Controversial" it doesn't seem we can do anything like this list. Jiva Goswami 22:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this: "A List of Groups Referred to as Controversial by the Media". We could include "cult" mainstream media opinions, child molestation accusations, embezzlement, suicide groups etc. No or little on page commentary, categorization or embellishment. Just one or two links to sources, no piling on of references. One or two references gets you on the list and further detail can be on the group's page.

This shunts the POV elsewhere as well, but is much closer to reasonable. "Groups labeled Controversial by the Media"? Jiva Goswami 23:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Many political groups are called "controversial". I don't see how this list and the proposed list would have much in common. If you'd like to create such a list then no one is stopping you. -Will Beback 23:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
My interest is not to make a list of controversial things. My interest is to get this page deleted, or short of that, remove the derogatorily intended slur "cult" from the title. Short of that, get this page to give up the pretence of not being a list of cults and be straight forward about what it is, a list of cults. Drop the pretend disclaimer and explain clearly the intention of creating a list of potentially dangerous cults to help protect the masses from those cults and the arbitrary criteria created to divine its members. Jiva Goswami 03:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't ascribe bad-faith motives to the editors of this article. The existence of this list has been repeatedly confirmed by the community. If you want to create another article with some ddifferent purposes and criteria then you are welcome to do so. -Will Beback 04:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, reading the various debates over what is a cult, which groups are a cult, and rationalizations on why it's the groups karma to be on this list, the bad-faith is difficult to ignore. As are the polite-on-the-surface calls for me to get my own page. Jiva Goswami 03:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Bad faith? My karma seems to be that no good deed goes unpunished. I gave up my cooking time and went a day without enough food to provide you with some of those rationalizations. That's something scholars do, parse through irrational feelings, emotions and beliefs to explain them rationally in the world of encyclopedic facts. You wrote that you had some kind of problem with scholars, so I guess there's a difference in a world view that we can't bridge. Pardon, but that's not bad faith the way Wikipedia defines it. Milo 11:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Filter

I've added a new rule as the title above has stated and began to edit the list to reflect the rule. Feel free to revert. I want to visually throw up an idea for everyone to talk about. cairoi 21:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted, per your request. Please discuss major changes on the talk page first. -Will Beback 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, what did you think of Where that was going Will? cairoi 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is not practical for us to distinguish types of cults in the manner proposed. I also think that having editors make major, unilateral deletions is not a good way to proceed. Please get a consensus first. -Will Beback 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I apologise to anyone offended. I think this list needs a shake up. It's calcifying. In line with the "Be bold" concept I attempted to shake it loose. Sometimes people need to see an idea. Sometimes that gets their knickers in a twist. cairoi 23:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No, this list does not need to be shaken up. It is stable, not calcified. -Will Beback 23:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Stable is a bad thing in this list's case. Jiva Goswami 01:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have another distinguishing proposal that also addresses the "cult" insult vs. "cult" description issue. "Cult" as a word in English is certainly not POV when new religious groups act out in ways that draw media attention to their interactions with police and government (including refusal to pay certain affiliated business taxes). The insult problem results when NRMs are called "cults" merely because they are slightly socially annoying or competitive with larger/older religions. • How annoying do they have to be to be an NPOV "cult"? Mass accosting airport travelers with begging and thus drawing public police attention strikes me as disruptive enough to merit being an NPOV "cult" (i.e., "cult" is more description than insult). The NPOV "cult" line becomes POV/insult blurry when NRMs are accused of "programming" converts and persuading them to leave their families. After all, the same thing could be said about becoming a cloistered nun or monk. The dividing line issue might be addressed by requiring reputable media references to any public police interaction, administrative government actions (orders or sanctions), or a private civil suit against a "cult", as named by multiple reputable sources. • Citizens must pay money to file suit, so it's not done lightly. Reported suits are therefore a convenient dividing line between "slightly socially annoying" ("cult" is more an insult), and "over-the-line annoying" ("cult" is more a description). Milo 22:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Taxation of church related business is not a trivial thing and because of lawsuits against unreasonable IRS policies, the 401d was created.
As is demonstrated repeatedly in the former Soviet Union up to and including today, police and government action against people and groups are hardly a reasonable measure of those groups. Or are they bad countries so they don't count? Russia's a G8 member. Where do we draw the line?
Were police actions in the Selma Alabama Marches valid points of reference to negatively evaluate the marchers? If the local citizens don't want those kinds of people marching for rights, then the police actions against them are just the marcher's karma coming back at them, right?
If the airport accosters have a permit and stay in their approved areas, then they're not a cult? Do they become one when the permit expires and they forget to renew it. Then a week later when they straighten it out, they aren't a cult anymore? Or maybe if the permit expires, they get an automatic 3 year cult label. Are the funny, entertaining ones OK, but the one's ones that seem "off" not OK, and get some cult points added to their file? Maybe we can have classes to reduce cult points like they do for driving licenses. Maybe they should have to sew a pink triangle on their shirts if their cult points get above a certain threshold, and a pink triangle can be put on their Wiki page. How annoying do I have to be to get my pink triangle?
Lawsuits cost money, therefore they aren't done lightly? Yah, OK. We're really stamping out this "POV/this is a cult list/no it's not" problem with a florish. Jiva Goswami 02:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There have been many lawsuits against established religions, such as the Roman Catholic Church. Also, it would skew the list towards the litigous U.S., and towards countries with repressive governments. -Will Beback 23:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
My proposed idea is to make it harder to report NRMs that are perhaps insultingly referred to as cults in mass media, but that haven't gotten legally embroiled with the government or other citizens. • "many lawsuits against established religions" The media reporting of the lawsuit would have to refer to one party as a "cult", which doesn't happen in suits against the main Catholic or other larger/older religions. • "skew the list towards the litigious U.S." I don't see how that's a problem. (Btw, "litigious U.S." is propaganda to promote passing laws to stop average people from winning suits against giant corporations. True civil justice is debateably better in the USA than anywhere else.) • "towards countries with repressive governments" Am I missing something? Under the present rules isn't there already maximum reporting of cults from repressive countries? I think my proposal would reduce "cult" reporting about slightly annoying but so far ok NRMs, even in repressive countries. Milo 02:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
While there is a certain merit to your idea, having to have a report of a legal action and a reference as a cult in the same articles is too high a hurdle. We could have a dozen references calling a group a "cult", and a dozen articles about legal problems, but unless the two concepts appeared in the same reference we wouldn't be able to use it. -Will Beback 03:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. • "too high a hurdle" I invite other editors to test the concept and see if the results look better than having Baptists, Quakers and Sunnis on a list along with Peoples Temple. • If you think Baptists, Quakers and Sunnis should be on the list because Euro "sectes/sekte" inclusion makes it unavoidable, then an alternative is to split the list into two parts: List-1 (media-referred-cults-legal) meets the legal involvement test; List-2 (media-referred-cults minus List-1) is the rest of those on the current list under the current rules. That way at least, Baptists, Quakers, and Sunnis won't be on the same list as Peoples Temple. If two lists, the alternative title should become plural as, "Lists of groups referred to or translated as cults". Milo 04:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a very roundabout method. As for the Baptists, I'm not sure why they are on the list, they are only mentioned in passing in the French report. I'd rather see us drop "sect" then go over to such a complicated scheme. -Will Beback 04:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Looking through older discussions I see some indicate this list's purpose is to name religions that have been "disrespected by the media" and that's in part why things like the Baptists or Sunnis are here. If that's the direction wanted it should be "list of religions that faced media criticism" or List of church scandals or something. However I imagine there are in least some who think this list is to be a list of groups who have to deal with allegations of being cults. If that's the purpose the current title might be fine and possibly you could even find religions whose websites acknowledge that they have been accused of being a cult. (Granted I don't know how a member of ISKCON or Scientology could not be aware of such allegations, I'm aware Catholicism has been called a cult by some, but I'll leave that for later) I just have a sense that purpose is offending some, but I think that's a purpose that's not going to vanish. I also think the hostility on this is slightly misguided. Category:Cults I'd think would be much more offensive as it shows up on the articles on several groups. I created Category:Purported cults to deal with that, by moving various groups to "purported" so their members wouldn't have to see their faith pointblank categorized as a cult, but that category was deleted. I'm a little confused why being called "alleged" or "purported" is more offensive than a pointblank declaration, but it apparently is. Still I think the category should be deleted, this list limited to those with two or more sources, and finally renamed to simply List of cults as being pointblank is apparently less weasely so preferred.--T. Anthony 10:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
ISKCON publishes and reprints in their ICJ a large number of articles on this topic, from a wide variety of POVs, including one by Dr Michael D. Langone, Executive Director of the American Family Foundation and editor of the Cultic Studies Journal: [19]. Other examples [20], [21], [22] -- or use Google. IMHO the ICJ has a more NPOV treatment of cults than en.wikipedia. --Pjacobi 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that the list should have limits on it's definition. But adding to Will's comment if no limit can be agreed upon, then it must not be limitted just by the opinions of Wikipedians. cairoi 23:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There are already several limits in the criteria. It is not limited only by the "opinions of Wikipedians". -Will Beback 04:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
My assertion, not objection, is that it is the tendancy of wikipedians to use their opinions of what a cult/sect is in this matter and not follow the rules. cairoi 16:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Cults

Several Catholic Devotional cults exist. I've readded two. Many Catholics revere Mary as part of their worship. This reverence is called the cult of Mary and those who practice it form the group. cairoi 14:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This involves a different meaning of word "cult" then I think is implied in this list. The sociological meaning I believe is used here and it is, "a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream." The Catholic meaning is the devotion given to a saint and relates more to the older meaning of "the external practices of a religion." There is a "cult", as in cultus, to every Saint that was ever canonized as far as I know. So if you include Catholic devotional cults accurately than this list will be largely redundant with List of Saints--T. Anthony 15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not part of the filter. Unless you are prepared to overcome objection to adding it to the filter then the definition is included. cairoi 16:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking you're being deliberately obtuse. The alternative is that you do want this to list the hundreds of cults to varied saints. Besides which the filter essentially already covers it. I loathe thinking of it this way, but in a sense Catholic cults are more like fan-cults than the kind of cult listed here. If we're going to list cults of saints we should list the Cult of Gandhi, The Cult of Mao, The Cult of Elvis], and every other such cult. Possibly it'd be better just to end this list entirely as it seems to never get anywhere sensible or in least not stay there long.--T. Anthony 09:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
We went over this already cairoi a month ago (see archive6). The "cult of Mary" is simply not a group. It is analgous to "cult of bread" which you chose not to add. (Furthermore, technically, the reference doesn't even refer to "cult of Mary" as a cult) I am also deleting all unlinked references in a second step. Gimmetrow 16:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, we went over this a month ago. At that time you failed to provide evidence either that they were groups, or that they had even been referred to as cults. Unless you have new evidence, I am not going to go over this again. Gimmetrow 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[23]
[24]
There are many groups that are part of the cult of the virgin mary. And it is called a cult. I was never happy with the your reasoning. I'd like outside opinions. The question is: "Is the cult of the Virgin Mary practiced by a GROUP of people?" And who said that groups have to be coherant. I think that's reading into the rules a bit much. cairoi 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The first link refers to a group called "Caritas" as a cult. That sounds like a qualified entry for "Caritas of Birmingham". Regarding your second link, I'm not sure what you are saying. Is the cult of bread practiced by a group of people? Yes. Is the cult of bread itself a group? Wouldn't seem so to me. Can Ukrainians be included on this list simply because they practice the cult of bread? No, unless the group "Ukrainians" are referred to as a cult in some source. Gimmetrow 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


If I ran the Zoo, said Mr. McGoo

The above reference to Dr. Zeus might be a way of thinking about this list that could bring some peace to people who find it unjust to include their pet groups. We could think of the list as an inclusive zoo exhibiting all the glory of references to groups as cults: cruel to the animals; maybe; but educational and conservationist too. cairoi 04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A zoo should contain animals, not pet rocks. "Opus Dei" and "Caritas of Birmingham" are beasts for the zoo, "cult of Singing" and "cult of Mary" are pet rocks. Gimmetrow 11:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Tag

In the context of the merge proposal not having consesus, I have inserted an unencyclopedic tag. Essentially, I am suggesting this site has become a battleground. 80.189.229.1 17:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There are other tags that would better communicate that sections of the article or the article itself is disputed. Since this article has survived at least two attempts to delete it, in my understanding it isn't unencyclopedic which generally means 'doesn't belong here'. That the information here is valuable doesn't seem to be in question, just where to put it. Antonrojo 19:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
In my view "battleground" precisely explains what this article has become. If you disagree then fine, however the tag says that an editor has expressed concern, not there is a consensus the article should be deleted. Also, I think List of Religions contains all the useful information here and this jumbled list is worthless. 80.189.207.69 11:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yup my apologies for the too-swift revert. But as Antonrojo says above there are more appropriate tags.... {{toofewopinions}} for instance.

Sfacets 11:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I should have posted on this page and then reverted. The definition of batleground includes "create or modify articles just to prove a point", I think in some ways this discussion is going round in circles because this is happening. 80.189.207.69 11:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults_archive7_39a8.html"