Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political cult

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 20:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political cult

Political cult (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

POV essay reflective more of Dennis King's personal views than anything else. General Idea 10:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove content, and rewrite There is a case for a sociological examination of this phenomenon but sadly I can't see anything in this article worth salvaging. One possibility is to get some more sociologically-inclined people in, hit the textbooks and make it a proper article with NPOV assertions with a wide range of sources. I now wish that I had passed first year sociology so that I could more directly assist with this. Orderinchaos78 12:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove content, and rewrite I'd be glad to help out with the rewrite of this article. .V. (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Upon further consideration, I find that the article is in fact well-sourced (or at least sourced enough). Perhaps it needs a bit of editing, but it certainly should be kept. .V. (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The initial suggestion to delete the article is phrased in the same language used by BabyDweezil (a follower of political cult leader Fred Newman who vehemently opposes the inclusion of the Newman group in the list of purported cults in final paragraph of article) on the Discussion Page. The entire paragraph listing purported political cults is properly cited. Any essay by me is on the discussion page, not the article. Most of the article was written by other people although I did add or rephrase stuff to correct what I regarded as misleading impressions. As a recognizedexpert on political cults, I believe that there is no basis for deleting this article, but for vastly improving it. Much of it is properly cited and citations can be found for the scattering of sentences that are not cited. The attack on all writers and scholars in the field as allegedly being former communists turned anti-communists was put in by BabyDweezil to create chaos and can be easily deleted by anyone (if BabyDweezil keeps restoring it, demand arbitration). Again, there is no real basis for deleting the article and I urge readers of this post to go to the "Fred Newman" biography on Wiki and see the totalitarian and demented games that this group is playing on Wikipedia, often using sock puppets.--Dking 15:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "Political cult" is an invention of former Marxists who now oppose their own former groups and involvements. It is not a concept accepted or used outside the "anti-cult" field other than via occassional tabloid coverage of the subject. This is a simple fact, and relevant to any entry on "Political Cults." If Dking has evidence of sock puppetry he should present it instead of attacking those who disagree with him with false charges and his incessant cult-baiting of fellow editors. When I corrected his misleading claim that a book was "praised", King deleted the entire section. When the Marxist Leninist backgrounds of all the authors he cites are noted by me in the article (which seems emininently relevant background on authors who are charging various Marxist groups—in some cases their own former groups--with being "political cults"), King deletes the properly referenced section, claiming in the edit summary "Deleted ad hominen attack by follower of Fred Newman." It's annoying enough that Dennis King continued to use Wikipedia to attempt to publish personal essays, such as this entry and International Workers Party that he cannot find a legitimate publisher for. Yet in addition, he is using personal attacks, cult baiting, charges of sock puppetry, against anyone who challenges this. Very silly. BabyDweezil 16:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish to correct the idea that opposition to political cults is a manifestation of a grudge against former M-L groups that some cult experts were once involved in. First, I was never in a political cult. The PLP, which I left over 30 years ago, has never been accused of cultism by any ex-member to my knowledge nor will one find complaints about it that are much more than criticism of what ex-members or opponents regard as extremely dogmatic politics or the typical Marxist top-down leadership. This is a group that banned Maoist style criticism/self-criticism in the late 1960s and encouraged its members to spend their time with friends, family and co-workers OUTSIDE the party rather than hanging around with each other (that's still its "line" today). As to Janja Lalich, she and most of the leadership and membership of the DWP rose up and expelled their leader (an unstable alcoholic) and voluntarily disbanded the party--who is she supposed to have a grudge against, her fellow rebels? As to Alex Stein, I believe from reading her book that her experiences inside the "O" gave her valuable insights into the nature of cults that she could not have attained in any other way; her former membership in the O speaks to her credibility, not to any prejudice. The same could be said of Tim Wohlforth. I am not aware that the group Prof. Tourish was in was a cult (most Marxist groups are not cults although they tend to elicit high commitment from their members). As to the dean of political cult watchers, Chip Berlet, he was never a member of any communist party or pre-party formation to my knowledge.--Dking 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please keep any discussion here relevant to the AfD. As far as I can tell, the article needs more sources but is otherwise acceptable. The sentences that are marked with a fact tag seem like they could be sourced very quickly (as this idea is certainly not new.) I see no particular POV here; this is an idea that has been in existence for a long time. I see there's an edit war of sorts going on here, but there's no need to start slinging around accusations. .V. (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, thoroughly cited. It doesn't matter who made up the term, they made it up a long time ago and lots of people are using it now. Passes WP:N and WP:V. If there's a WP:NPOV problem, that is not an argument for deletion, per WP:AFD: "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." So if there's problems with the article, fix those problems, but there's no grounds for deletion. — coelacan talk — 05:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per General Idea. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Tsunami Butler 06:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with cult. As it is it's a badly written attack article and a fork of cult. NPOVify and move anything useful to cult. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep There is no sound basis for deletion of this article; it still needs revisions but it is properly sourced and deletion is absurd. Deleting an article simply because certain groups of people disagree with the content/subject matter is not a reason to delete this or any article. GrownUpAndWise 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, term and concept are in wide usage, article is well referenced and cites numerous uses in several different contexts. Article needs some cleanup to remove unsourced POV assertions... Dragomiloff 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with cult or simply delete. The term has scant or no usage in the scholarly literature uotside of the so-called "cultic studies" journal and is simply used pejoratively by political partisans, tabloid journalists or former members of groups with an apparent axe to grind, as elaborated in the article. As a largely pejorative, unscholarly term, doesn't seem any more worthy of an entry than "Bleeding Heart Liberal." BabyDweezil 19:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, "Political cult" is different from a religious cult and deserves some discussion of what it is etc... (and the cleanest and easiest way to do it is in its own article). I'll assume good faith, but casual observors of this debate should be aware that some of those voting for deletion might have mixed motives.... for example I know at least one is a follower of political extremist "Lyndon LaRouche." It's neither surprising nor nefarious that groups that are often labelled as "political cults" would oppose the existence of a Wikipedia article. It's a fairly obvious point, but I just thought I'd mention it so that casual readers are aware of the issue. Mgunn 21:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And of course it would be neither surprising nor nefarious that some self-proclaimed "experts" who have a vested interest in giving legitimacy to vague catch-phrases and neologisms like "Political Cult" via a Wikipedia entry might have mixed motives and vote for keeping the article. BabyDweezil 01:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I favor the inclusion of the "Political Cults" entry. The term is widely accepted by academics and professionals who study the dynamics of group behavior. I will cite just a few examples: Robert Jay Lifton, M.D. Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at John Jay College: "Any student of cultic behavior knows that it can find both political and religious expression." Dr. Margaret Thaler Singer, who recently passed away and was a clinical psychologist and emeritus adjunct professor at the University of California, Berkeley lists ten major types of cults including "Political" in her book "Cults in Our Midst." Dr. Marc Galanter, Professor of Psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine and editor of the American Psychiatric Association's official report on cults and new religious movements, lists "political groups" among the charismatic groups that form cults (see: "Cults, Faith, Healing and Coercion.") It is understandable that current members of political cults will respond to the term in 2 ways: (1) while recognizing that political cults exist, deny that the particular group they belong to is one or (2) insist that political cults do not exist. If they were to recognize the group they belong to as a cult they would leavce voluntarily, or be forced to leave. I am reminded of the evolution vs. creationism dispute. That a few people disagree with the theory of evolution does not negate the fact that evolution is deeply rooted in fact and accepted by almost all professionals devoted to studying the matter. It is not POV. The term "Political Cults" is not a POV matter either. It is a commonly accepted term to designate specific organizations that do in fact exist and that function in a cultic fashion. I do feel the entry needs some more work. Most important is an explanation of how politics works in such groups just as religion works in other groups. This again is neither POV or OR. There is extensive research on this available that can be cited in the text of the entry.

Tim WohlforthTim Wohlforth 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if citing the book jacket blurb from Lifton from your book qualifies as an example of "wide acceptance" of the term :) BabyDweezil 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There is a fairly large academic literature on the subject, not all of which is associated with King. 172 | Talk 02:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.