Template talk:Cults/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Arbitrary section header

The exact content of this page is somewhat debatable. To mention one doubt that has been raised (and to which I don't exactly disagree), it is arguable that Rajneesh's followers don't have much of an established hierarchy currently, so perhaps they don't qualify as a cult. On the other hand they have strong proselitism here in Brazil, and the image of Rajneesh and the dangers associated with it are very much alive still. Luis Dantas 18:56, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


well, I don't think that Rajneesh belongs on the mediawiki cults I think it is better to raise the objections to Rajneesh speculative, misguided or deceptive ideas on the page of Rajneesh himself. Unfortuantely there are plenty of groups that can serve as an example of a cult. Too many to list, in fact. Andries 19:29, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As written, this MediaWiki is very POV and inflammatory toward more than one religion. Davodd 11:44, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Should "Guru" really be here? It sort of implies that any small, original religion lead by a single individual is a cult. -- Khym Chanur 04:24, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Khym, it will be called a cult by the public even if this is unfair and unjustified. Most cult leaders can be considered gurus in the contempary meaning of the word, whether we like it or not. Andries 07:17, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The wikimedia cults will refer to all articles that are essential to understand cults. I think these are Cult of personality, Propaganda , Fundamentalism , Guru , Faith , Communal reinforcement. It will be added as a footer to all the articles that deal primarily with cults i.e. Cult , Purported cults, Christian countercult movement , Anti-cult movement , Exit counseling , Thought reform , Deprogramming , Mind control & Brainwashing The difference between a See also list is that the wikimedia cults refers to essential articles. The See also list will also refer to side issues. Andries 08:51, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deletions

Why have Mind control and Charismatic authority been removed from the template? They seem relevant. -Willmcw 19:35, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Remopved because it portrays POV: that cults engage in mind control. Mind control theories are not only related to cults. Same with Charismatic authority. Blatant POV and advocacy (throwing mud with the hope some sticks). I could also add to this template mass hysteria, witch hunt, hate group, religious intolerance, religious freedom Human rights, Apostasy, etc. (you get the point), but I don't because it would also be POV and advocacy. Or maybe not? :) --Zappaz 03:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We are not talking about human rights. Zappaz, perhaps you could clarify for me what you consider a cult to be. In some discussion you say that calling a group a "cult" is disparaging term, while in other discussions, such as this one, you complain about disparaging terms being used about cults. Do you deny that there are groups described as cults that may engage in "mind control" or depend upon "charismatic authority"? If there are groups that do so, what would you call them? The articles have been included in the cult category, are you planning to remove them from that as well? Please explain where you see these articles fitting into the encyclopedia, if not here. Thanks -Willmcw 04:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
I had no choice but to balance this template. I would have preferred to keep it simple, though. Cheers. --Zappaz 16:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Witch hunt | Bigotry

I see references to cults in Witch hunt, but none in Bigotry. Why is Bigotry on the template? -Willmcw 20:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I a direct reference to bigotry needed? ≈ jossi ≈ 04:58, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
If not, why else is it on the template? There are lots of other terms that don't have a direct reference either. I suppose we could make arguments for including them. But a navigation template's purpose is to help readers find their way among related articles. -Willmcw 05:28, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
:If not, why else is it on the template? Because, Willmcw, people that belong to minority religions, see some of the activism of the anti-cult as an expression of bigotism and religious intolerance. Read the related articles in which this template is linked to. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:56, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Aren't there several other articles on the template that discuss anti-cult bigotry? The topic seems to be covered well elsewhere and not at all in "bigotry". It doesn't seem to add anything. -Willmcw 00:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, a template would seem to be for articles closely related to the template topic. That seems to be a principle that some people have trouble grasping -- after all, Zappaz only added "Witch hunt" and "Bigotry" to the template after he couldn't get away with removing "Mind control" (his edit summary makes clear that he viewed it as quid pro quo, not as, y'know, trying to be accurate and helpful to the reader...) Poor Zappaz must've been extremely confused; give him half a chance and he'll go into a tizzy and tirade about how "mind control" is the entirely scientifically disproven concept around which is based the whole of the anti-cult movement's opposition to what they pejoratively refer to cults, yadda yadda yadda (a complete straw man, but one doesn't expect much accuracy from Zappaz in describing the anti-cult movement). Then, after having screamed up and down how the only reason anyone could possibly object to perfectly legitimate "new religious movements" and tar them with the awful epithet of "cults" is the Big Lie of "mind control" -- he thinks he should be fighting to keep it out of the template? and then he thinks that because he didn't get his way in taking out "mind control" (which all POVs agree is closely related to the concept of cults) he's entitled to put in "witch hunt" and "bigotry"?
As Will points out, if "bigotry" is so gosh-darn closely related to the whole concept of cults then one would think the article linked to would have had some mention of it. (One that wasn't, by the way, hastily edited in so that someone could say 'There, now bigotry mentions how everyone who remembers what happened at Jonestown and thinks the same could happen again is just a big ol' bigot; now you have to put "bigotry" in the template and if you don't like that, I'll award myself some other POV addition as a consolation prize.') -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Formatting the template

  • What do people think about changing the format/layout shape of the template? Have a look at the Template:ScientologySeries. This template is vertical, and is made to run down the right-hand side of the article, below the subject's picture and/or infobox. This seems to be a more logical arrangement of ease of use and ease of navigation to the reader. Let me know what you think here or on my talk page. I would be bold and do it myself, but I'm not that great at tabulation programming. Thanks for your time. Yours, Smeelgova 22:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC).
    • I have formatted the template as suggested above, in the mold of Template:ScientologySeries, and virtually all of the other templates within Category:Religion navigational boxes. Please discuss and let me know what you think here on the discussion page before modifying. Yours, Smeelgova 23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC).
What's the purpose of this change? To my view, it makes the template too prominent, especially in short articles. -Will Beback 19:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I would also like to see what others think as well. In those shorter articles you mention, we would hope that they would be expanded upon in the future. As for other articles, this forms part of a series, so that the reader can navigate much easier, and so that editors can more easily see where Wikipedia has and/or lacks information on certain specific topics within this subject. Yours, Smeelgova 19:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
I agree with Will Beback on the prominence issue, also, the template formated vertically vs horizontally will often not fit correctly in a page, as other elements such as images etc. occupy the place where the template would fit, such as in the case of Les Sectes where the template is crowded at the bottom of the article. Sfacets 03:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your candor. Please see more on this discussion at the bottom of the talk page. Smeelgova 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

small formatting technical problem

  • After formatting, it seems that if I place this template while coding below a different one in an article, instead of appearing below, it appears to the left of the other template. How do I fix this? Smeelgova 23:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Bias

To label aion a "cult" shows bias. To have a category named "cult" in which articles are placed is derogatory to the organisations of whom the article is about. Wouldn't it be more sensible to relable the category something like "Purported Cults" or similar? Many organisations currently in this category are either recognised only in the US or only in Europe as having "cult-like" properties. What are the criteria of inclusion? Sfacets 06:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are in the wrong discussion board and article, you may want to go to Category:Cults.

No, adding this template to an article connotes that the subject is undeniably a cult. The same goes with [[Category:Cults]]. Sfacets 11:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Which particular articles do you have an issue with it being added to and we can discuss them? Yours, Smeelgova 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC).


Only the articles included the template can have this template. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Alpha sort

The articles listed under each heading need to be sorted alphabetically. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you were doing that, thank you. Yours, Smeelgova 20:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

Relevancy

  • Per User:Jossi : please note that only highly relevant articles should be placed there. Only articles which are highly relevant to this series should be placed here. Articles which are not relevant directly to cults, and do not mention cults even once in the body text of the article (before this current edit), should not be placed within this series. Yours, Smeelgova 05:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC).
    • I think articles on organisations which are pro-religious freedom (as opposed to anti-cult organisations) deserve inclusion as much as any anti-cult organisation, even though the wikipedia articles on said organisations may not include the word "cult", they are all-inclusive to all religious groups. Sfacets 06:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

List of groups referred to as cults

Why was List of groups referred to as cults removed from this template? It's been on here for a very long time without any complaints. -Will Beback 01:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it appropriate as per the disclaimer in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, these are groups referred to as and not cults. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Then let's put it back with its full title. I think it was only truncated to reduce the width of the template. With the full title it's clear that these are groups that have only been referred to as cults. -Will Beback 02:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Not so sure, Will. We spent an extraordinary amount of time NPOVng that page, to now go back to asserting de facto that these groups belong to Category:Cults by adding these to the category, as well as adding the infobox. We just completed two CfDs that responded to these attempts. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, the list has been in this template for two and a half years, ever since it was created in 2004.[1]. You yourself have edited the template, with the list included in August 6, 2005, December 30, 2005, February 21, 2006, June 30, 2006, and even October 24, 2006. If it was suitable then, why not now? Furthermore, we include articles which make only brief mention of cults, such as Witch_hunt. The List article is far more inovled in this template's topic than some of the other articles in it. -Will Beback 02:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox debate

During that time it was a footer template, very much replacing "See also" section. Recently it was changed and expanded to include a ton of stuff and made into an overwhelming infobox. I will be happy to keep it as it was before this change. Previous version ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
That works for me too. I didn't agree with the change either. If we all agree then let's just go back. -Will Beback 08:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I consense reversion to a horizontal format. It was a boldness worth trying by Smeelgova, but jossi's correct about the "overwhelming infobox". I hardly noticed it as a footer. The large number of titles (still growing) with necessary long titles, take up too much screen real estate in vertical format. At List of groups referred to as cults, it will distract from the visual formatting of the listing rules that I think useful (and Jiva demands) and may also interfere with the list article format. • However, I like the content that I think Will Beback and others like. It adds an overview of diversity of opinion that Sfacets wants, in a permanently compact form that I think jossi likes. jossi's NPOV objections I take seriously, but I think this template can use the same quick fix I've suggested for categories: change "Cults" to "Cult references". • Also, it doesn't have to remain a footer at List of groups referred to as cults. I assume there is way to program a horizontal copy of the box to position anywhere in the article. One location that might be politically useful is just below the introduction and prior to the contents list. The box would reinforce the introductory text by reference. I think readers who see their own POV listed in the box, are more likely to tolerate their NRM being cult-referenced in a list that follows. Milo 09:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This current version looks good. Don't have to go rooting around for relevant articles if I'm in a hurry. Joe1141 02:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC).
Moving it back to the bottom of articles won't involve much "rooting around". -Will Beback 07:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Though I'm debating whether to leave Wikipedia altogether due to negative experiences and personal attacks, Will Beback requested that I comment here on the talk page, so I guess that's okay and not considered editing directly. I personally like the current format. I think there is a dirth of information on this subject, and this provides the reader and editor an easy way to navigate, as well as display relevant information on topics directly related to the subject matter. I think we should all sit on this vertical format for a while and see how it goes. It would also be advantageous for you all to give it some time, and elicit responses from others who are not as heavily vested in this as yourselves. Hope you are all doing well, and have a better time establishing better working relationships and respect with fellow editors than I did. Yours, Smeelgova 08:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC).
It's a shame you are considering leaving, you are obviously a good editor... While I agree with repositioning the template horizontally, waiting for further consensus doesn't seem like a bad idea. Sfacets 08:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, no need to wait — WP:Avoid the H vs. V issue with two templates if necessary. Not sure, but I sense there is some "include" way to pull a single edit text into two differently formatted boxes (or three counting the horizontal float version I suggested above). If any of you don't already know how to do this, Omegatron may be the go-to guy to ask. Milo 11:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Smeelgova, the template Looks great! It is Gold. I am sorry that you have recieved personal attacks in regards to editing on CULTS. It is hard for folks in the CULTS to accept that we are only trying to provide information via an electronic medium. If they so choose not to be included they could alter their practices/tenets/teachings. I cite the Christians in the early American settlements, that were burining folks at the stake with mere gossip evidence. During that time period they would be included in this template, today they don't do any of those practices and hence not included here. Point being that the Editors are being assailed for merely doing a public service. Smeelgova , I wish you well and thank you for all you time, participation, gift (writing) and for willing to give your time to others. PEACE TalkAbout 18:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


I re-propose to restore the horizontal-bottom placement infobox as per discussion above. The current box is overwhelming, taking way too much real estate in articles that use it, becoming quite obtrusive. We can keep all the wikilinks as is, but just restore the horizontal format. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It seemed that there were other editors who feel differently, including myself. Take a look at '''{{ScientologySeries}}''' for example View here. That is also a very large template, vertically oriented, and yet because it is part of a series of articles, it serves a very good organizational purpose as an organizational and navigational tool. Smee 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
The Scientology articles are a series of articles about that group. The cult-related articles are just that: a lose collection of related articles. We diverge in our opinions on this, obviously. Nevertheless, the main complaint is the obtrusiveness of this infobox, not its contents. Content is OK, format and position is what is disputed. As the template was for quite along time horizontal and placed at the bottom of related articles, what I am challenging is the change made to the template that was contested end of last year, but not followed up upon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
And just how are the cult articles not a series of articles themselves? Many of them even have "cult" in the title of the article itself... Smee 17:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
I prefer the horizontal layout, placed at the bottom of articles, for this and most templates. -Will Beback · † · 17:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree. As a navigational aid, an horizontal, bottom-placed template works really well, without obstructing or making articles unpleasantly formatted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
And what about User:Milomedes suggestion, to have both horizontal and vertical options of templates? Let us see what other editors think, especially those that have weighed in previously above. Smee 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
That may work, if (a) we then apply common sense and use the vertical format only on these cases that is warranted only and (b) we remove the "part of a series" mention in the header of the template. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As part of the cleanup, we should also remove all wikilinks in "See also" sections of articles that feature the template. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My proposal is to replace the format of this template with a format similar to {{Sikhism}} ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I still do not understand how it is not part of a series, especially when articles have "cult" in the title of the article? Smee 18:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
part of a series implies that each and every article listed in the infobox belongs to a "series" of articles. Also implies that the article featuring the template is part of that series when it may not be. That is incorrect. Removing the articles that are not "part of a series" will render the template unusable as a navigational aid, as it will miss important related articles. Hope this explains it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Then a solution would be to have a new horizontal portal, Template:CultsPortal, as a navigational tool, and keep this "part of a series" vertical template, with the articles that are actually "part of a series". There are certainly enough articles directly related to warrant it. Smee 18:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
That may work, if we only use the vertical template on these articles that are indisputable "part of a series" only. And the horizontal version in all articles that may be relate, as per a "see also" section, removing any wikilinks duplicated in such a section when the horizontal template is added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
I will work on building Template:CultsPortal into a proper horizontal portal for the See Also section... Smee 04:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
Did you mean Portal:Cults or Template:CultsPortal, there is a difference... An entire portal is only viable if there are both enough contributors as well as enough articles to be featured in the portal. Sfacets 05:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
We could star with Template:CultsPortal, a smaller horizontal version, which I will work on starting, and then eventually also create a Portal:Cults as well - Yes, I do think there is viability for an entire portal - that is a good idea. Smee 15:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
Smee, Good addition as I had just started reading about Project Megiddo and was thinking of placing a Freedom of Information request to see if there was any other material out there that can be released. Good going!:-)PEACETalkAbout 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, This Sikhism template is not too easy to see (the yellow is very bright) and a little hard for the brain to register and navigate. OK, so I look at things (recently) with a different spectrum and I always try and see how it will work as a learning tool but I think the current way works well and would meet the ADA.PEACETalkAbout 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Per consensus, changed back to footer template

  • I have read the points made by Jossi, Will Beback, Milo, and Sfacets, and they have all made convincing points. The consensus seems to be to move back to the original style of a Horizontal Footer at the bottom of the article. After careful consideration I have come to actually agree with these individuals' statements above, and I have done so, in keeping with the general formatting of the current version. Yours, Smee 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Anti-cult organizations, Anti-cult individuals

I changed "organizations" and "individuals" to "Anti-cult organizations" and "Anti-cult individuals" respectively - this was to describe the occupation of said organizations and individuals - since these could be confused as the organizations ("cults") themselves and the individuals as members of said organizations. It was not POV-pushing by any means. Sfacets 15:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I think I can come to a compromise we can all agree with shortly... Bear with me one moment please... Yours, Smee 15:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Moving of 2 entries

  • Atrocity story and Deviancy amplification spiral -- These are not "theories" that are applied directly to the "cults" phenomenon, but rather "related" issues that were cited as an aside by some researchers in the matter. Thus, they are more appropriate for the "related" section of the template. Smee 04:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Mind control and Brainwashing are neither applied directly to purported "cults". Read the articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps in that case, they should also be removed from the list. But in any case, they are. "Deviancy amplification spiral", was only cited by (1) researcher as being related to the topic. We should tighten the inclusionary criteria for "theories" and for "related". Smee 05:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
OK. You can move Deviancy amplification spiral to related. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A valiant try... Smee 05:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
There's no mention of cults in Deviancy amplification spiral, and this template isn't in that article either. Topics we include on this template should have an apparent connection. -Will Beback · † · 06:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is... But I agree that the material there may not warrant inclusion in this template. Let's remove it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Smee 15:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Clambake

Operation Clambake is not an organization, but a website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, interesting point. One could make the point that it is both. However, it is certainly relevant, where would you suggest moving it to in the template? Perhaps Opposition? Or Related? Smee 05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Or it might just be easier to rename the "Organizations" section to "Resources" or "Organizations and Resources". Smee 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
That website is better placed on a CoS related template, rather than in a generic template such as this that is so widely used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Check out the Web site itself. It clearly believes that the group it is criticizing is a "cult". I am sure that the Church of Scientology calls them an "anti-cult organization", or "anti-cultists"... Smee 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Listed under the section on Barker: Anti-cult#Five_types_of_cult-watching_groups_by_Eileen_Barker. Smee 11:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
... which I removed, alongside all other examples, as WP:OR violation. The source does not describe any these examples. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Clambake certainly related

My concerns above were not addressed. Clambake is most certainly related. They classify the group they oppose as a "cult", and I am sure that the group they oppose has characterized them in the past as an "anti-cult group", or "anti-cult organization", or "anti-cultist". If Jossi does not feel it should belong in the "Organizations" part of the template, please suggest another section to move it to instead. Please do not unilaterally remove this entry from the template entirely, without further polite discussion. Smee 21:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

All links are generic, and that one is specific to the CoS. I do not think it belongs in a generic template as no other link is specific, but you can ask other editors for their opinion. It surely belongs in the CoS template, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Any organization that in and of itself specifically believes that it is criticizing a "cult", and has plainly stated as such, should be listed in the template, as highly relevant. Smee 01:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

Is Clambake an organization? It appears to merely be a website critical of Scientology, and therefore shouldn't merit to be placed in a template on 'cults' - It would be better served to place it on a Scientology-related template. The inclusion of this website is suggesting that Scientology is a cult, and is definitely POV-pushing to include such a non-generic article to such a general topic. Sfacets 05:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion - Operation Clambake is wholly devoted to opposing the Church of Scientology. Regardless of whether or not the folks behind OC view Scientology as a cult, it is difficult to classify them as an anti-cult organization. Doing so does, indeed, imply that the view of Wikipedia is that Scientology is a cult as well. This does appear to be too POV for inclusion and I would recomment against listing them in the template. Regards, Arkyan • (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for providing this opinion. I have moved Operation Clambake to the "related" section. Smee 18:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
The opinions were unrelated to the classification, but to the inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, both refer to the nature of the question of "organization". I shall post this question again to 3O, with regard to inclusion at all. Smee 20:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
Next time, if you do not mind, please inform in talk about asking a 3O. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If you read the editors above, both addressed the inclusion of that link already in the teamplate. Another 3) is unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought I had mentioned about asking for 3O, but if I did not, my apologies. However, I have asked again, as the first question and comments here both address inclusion in the context of "organization", as opposed to inclusion at all in the "related" section. Smee 21:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
Please re-read the comments. Both argued against its inclusion in a generic template. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Both also did so within the context of the question "organization", and not solely as a related topic. However, I also think the related section should go. See below. Smee 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

"Related" section

I think the "related" section is tangential at best, and is getting too big. To keep the template as tight as possible, I think the "Related" section should be removed entirely. Smee 21:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

It has been there for many months, Smee. I would argue that it is very pertinent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Pertinent? Perhaps, yes, but necessary and relevant in a template that is supposed to be on cults, and not random things "related" to cults? No. Similar templates do not have this, and it is a sticky bottom place for people to push pov, from many different angles. Smee 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

I have removed the section on the basis that the template was not included on any of the pages in the section. (Apart from Project Megiddo which is now under opposition).

I also added a wiktionary template as I think that the definitions of cult should be in the definitions section - but I am not so happy with that edit. Conrad.Irwin 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)