Talk:Destructive cult/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

Previous request for discussion

From WP:RfD:

  • Destructive cult → List of purported cults - Delete redirect. Title is inherently POV. Just a few days ago we completed the deletion of another POV redirect to this article (List of deadly cults) for same reasons. Thanks. --Zappaz 02:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • keep redirects aren't POV, pointing them to the correct article aids NPOV. SchmuckyTheCat 03:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • delete. This redirect needs to be deleted for the same reasons the redirect List of deadly cults was deleted. The list contains groups that are most definitively not destructive. Blatant POV. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • A bunch of things link here. It can't be removed until those links are fixed to point to the destination. Noel (talk) 00:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, Ed! --Zappaz 04:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reference

Can someone find a referece or attribution to the statement below? Thanks --ZappaZ 01:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This definition is often extended to any new religious movement (NRM) which allegedly ruins its members lives or markedly limits their personal freedom: emotionally, mentally, spiritually or financially.

Given that no references or attribution to above statement were provided, I have deleted the text. --ZappaZ 21:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Steven Hassan uses the term in such a way though the exact wording may differ. Andries 17:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Question Replacing Al-Qaeda with Takfir wal-Hijra

I took a class on Radical Islam, the paper of which I should really finish, and this group was mentioned as being seen as "a cult" in Egypt. It did not say that of Al-Qaeda or other jihadist. Could they/should they be added? Or added with some kind of note maybe?--T. Anthony 13:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Were they mentioned in some type of printed material that could be used as your source? I see no reason why there wouldn't be cults in Egypt, there always have been. Are they desctructive? -Willmcw 20:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll have to look through my books from the Radical Islam class. They were mentioned in some Egyptian newspaper as "cultlike", but the statement is disputed as they are also an Islamist terrorist group like Al-Qaeda. One of their members shot a bunch of people in a pacifist mosque in Sudan. Their goals are much more solely religious than AQ. If I add them I'll mention the paper and put in a note, but I think they'd be closer to fitting than Al-Qaeda. Although that could be opening a flood gate for including Lord's Resistance Army and God's Army I guess.--T. Anthony 00:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Destructive cult

I disagree with the stated definition of the term. A quick net search reveals that most definitions do not include the limitation to cults which advocate or carry out murder.--Anchoress 04:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

True, it is also used by anti-cult activists for cults that they believe to ruin lives. It used to be in the article but somehow it got lost. Andries 17:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Islam

Doesn't Islam fall into the category of this?

Not unless you include all of the world's religions. Most religions have their crazies. Tanaats 02:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Heidi Fittkau-Garthe

Smeelgova. This section was removed because a reliable reference [1] was found showing that Heidi was released without charge shortly after the event. This means that the story is a Wiki:BLP violation since there was, in fact, no "destructive cult" that she could be accused of leading. Please refer to the discussion on the related "Cult" article for further details. [2]. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 13:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist and paramilitary organizations

Added 4 cites of people who consider Al Qaeda to be a cult. EmmDee 17:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal, creation of article related to this one: List of destructive cults

We already have a category, Category:Destructive cults. This is a proposal and a question for feedback regarding the creation of a list: List of destructive cults. As per the current instructions at the category, the list would be one were there is consensus in reputable sources that these groups are destructive cults. The term "destructive cult", sometimes called "doomsday cult" refers to a small number of religious groups that have intentionally killed people - either themselves or others.

Feedback on proposal for List of destructive cults

  • Please provide feedback on this idea, in this subsection, below. Smee 03:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
  • I will take a look, just coming back now....I see I have quite a bit of reading to do.PEACETalkAbout 03:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Bad idea. A truly honest list would not include a small number of religious groups but also the Roman Catholic Church, Islam and Judaism. It is a matter of historical record that they have also killed people - themselves and others - intentionally, on the instigation of their religious leaders and for religious reasons. Didn't notice that cat before, but this problem should be addressed there too. -- Really Spooky 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hrm, actually, perhaps a Straw Poll format would be good here as well... Smee 04:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
  • There's no technical reason for such a list article. The purpose of creating a separate list article is usually because an included section list overwhelms a text article. There are only 10-some destructive cults, many of whom are already listed in this text article. Milo 05:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • A very good point. In that case, it would probably be better to add more to this article first, and when the list gets too long here, bring this discussion up again at a later point in time. Smee 05:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Mungiki?

Should it be mentioned? Several sources seem to indicate it's violent and "a sect."SABC,BBC,Mainichi.--T. Anthony 00:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Those do seem like reputable sources... Smee 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
    • The main point of disagreement I've seen on it is that it might really just be a street gang that claims to be a religious sect. Not sure why a gang would do that, but I guess maybe the theory is that it does so as some kind of justification or racket.--T. Anthony 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, if there are multiple reliable reputable sources for it... Smee 03:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC).


Explanation of WP:OR tags

This article should probably be nominated for deletion. However I realise there are some editors who feel strongly about the subject so I would like to try to take a constructive approach first and see if the problems can be resolved. I am willing to accept the possibility of a Wikipedia article on the topic of ‘destructive cults’, but in order to justify it, the subject must be defined with reference to reliable sources reflecting a notable and coherent body of thought. I note the following from WP:V:

"If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

I am not suggesting that the body of thought need be scientific or recognised in the academic community. For example it could be a definition used by the anti-cult movement and attributed as such. As it currently stands, however, the article is original research. In particular -

  • The definition of ‘destructive cult’. This definition relied upon as the basis for the article is not attributed to anyone. There is a secondary definition attributed to Steven Hassan, but this is not the one that is the subject of the article. It is moreover questionable whether Steven Hassan’s personal definition of a ‘destructive cult’ would warrant a separate article anyway (as opposed to a simple mention in the article about Steven Hassan), unless of course it can be shown that his definition is accepted by some wider body of opinion.
  • The list of ‘documented’ destructive cults. I realise that these groups may have killed people or themselves etc. as mentioned at the top of the article, but as noted above it appears the source definition is an arbitrary one concocted by Wikipedia editors. Even if the definition was an accepted one, however, a mere list without more is inappropriate because it is original research. What is needed is a text section discussing the various groups that have been described as destructive cults, what reliable sources have held so and perhaps their reasons for identifying them as such etc. The current list lacks any reliable sources: there are only internal links to Wikipedia articles, none of which describe the groups as destructive cults or identify any source that does (in fact many of those articles themselves contain original research and are tagged as such).
  • Finally, the section on “terrorism and paramilitary organisations”, although well-referenced, is unrelated to any discussion about the concept of “destructive cults” nor are the groups identified as such. This material best belongs in the respective articles about the Tamil Tigers, al-Qaeda and the Holy Spirit Movement.

I suggest the problems above need to be fixed (if this is possible), failing which the article should be nominated for deletion. -- Really Spooky 15:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, nominated for deletion suggestion???

Ah, right. This is a term widely used by scholars and by the media to describe cults that have harmed or even caused death to themselves and others. Yes, the article is rough and needs some cleanup and lots more citations to be added, which will be soon, but deletion? Wow. Smee 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

I certainly don't dispute that the term is widely used (especially by the anti-cult movement), but there are a lot of terms used in the media etc. that don't have or necessarily deserve Wikipedia articles (like 'bleeding heart liberal', for example).
My main reason for raising the prospect of deletion is that the subject-matter of the article as currently defined appears to be an arbitrary one concocted by Wikipedia editors, which makes it original research. I have in mind particularly the weasel words at the beginning: "The term "destructive cult" (sometimes called doomsday cult) is sometimes used to refer to..."
But as I said above, I do not oppose such an article if its subject-matter is defined through some notable and identifiable body of thought and cites its sources. -- Really Spooky 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
PS. You acknowledge the article needs 'cleanup and a lot more citations', but frankly unsourced material should not be included in the first place, particularly if it is negative or potentially defamatory. Current Wikipolicy is that such information should be aggressively removed without discussion instead of posting tags. -- Really Spooky 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Paper on bioterrorism discusses two "cults"

  • Historical Trends Related to Bioterrorism: An Empirical Analysis -- This is all PUBLIC DOMAIN, so any images, etc. can be used in this article. Notice the table which discusses "Rajneeshee Cult" and "Aum Shinrikyo"... Just some food for thought, or anthrax and Salmonella for thought rather, yuck yuck. Smee 00:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

Photo request

I'm removing the {{reqphoto}} tag -- if someone else wants to put it back then feel free, but please be more precise about what sort of photo you think would accompany this article well, so other editors have an idea of what to look for. Tim Pierce 15:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Sources for term 'Destructive Cult'

1. 'Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance' http://www.religioustolerance.org/destruct.htm

'We define Doomsday/Destructive/Apocalyptic cults to be religiously based, very high intensity, controlling groups that have caused or are liable to cause loss of life among their membership or the general public.'

2. Houston Psychiatric Society http://www.houstonpsychiatry.org/1148480479

'MALIGNANT PIED PIPERS OF OUR TIME: A Psychological Study of Destructive Cult Leaders from the Rev. Jim Jones to Osama bin Laden PublishAmerica, Baltimore (2005) ISBN 1-4137-7668-X Amazon.com, B&N Peter A. Olsson MD

'In this book, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Dr. Peter A. Olsson examines the phenomena of destructive and apocalyptic cults, revealing the psychological roots of both leaders and cult members. Dr. Olsson calls the leaders — Rev. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Shoko Asahara, Osama bin Laden, and others — Malignant Pied Pipers for the way they lure followers to their deaths. ....'

Will that do?

Also, Sfacets's 11 Oct 07 comment on the history page: 'Terrorist and paramilitary organizations - this section is OR, nothing connects the groups to Steve H's definition - please provide sources, or this section will be deleted.' seems OR itself. Does Sfacets have a RS for his opinion that ' nothing connects the groups to Steve H's definition'? I can't follow their logic there at all; ISTM that Steve H's definition fits a terrorist group like al Qaeda quite well, as far as it goes.

Of course the term 'Destructive Cult' can be used in somewhat different ways, depending on the context. I agree the article could elucidate those different usages/contexts better, but to start deleting sections seems way OTT. Constructive editing is better than destructive editing. EmmDee 16:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that constructive editing is better than 'destructive' editing. :) To my mind the best approach would be to merge the Hassan definition into the Steve Hassan article and the sourced material in 'Terrorist and paramilitary organisations' (which do not use the term 'destructive cult') into the articles on those groups.
Really the only material in this article that is referable to the topic is the Steve Hassan definition, but IMHO this does not justify a separate article since it is not sufficiently notable (i.e. it is only Steve Hassan's own self-published idea). When editors then start adding material to the article that they think fits the definition, that is original research. I do agree that sourced material should not be removed from Wikipedia, rather it should be moved to an appropriate place, e.g. in the articles on those groups or on terrorist and paramilitary organizations. -- Really Spooky 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That sounds about right - unless references can be provided naming so-called "terrorist" organizations as "destructive cults", then the section needs to be moved from this article. The sources provided by EmmDee above are not acceptable - the first is not a valid academic source, and he second doesn't provide a definition, it simply discusses groups in relation to Steve Hassan's definition. Sfacets 00:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


There used to be an (unsourced but reasonable) definition of 'Destructive Cult' which has been removed: 'The term "destructive cult" is sometimes used to refer to that small number of religious groups that have intentionally killed people, either the group members themselves or others outside of the group.'

I provided two cites to back up the statement that: 'The term "destructive cult" is sometimes used ...'

Sfacets considers these cites not acceptable, but I can't see that his objections are valid. They would only be valid if there was a rule that all text in Wikipedia articles must be sourced from an RS, which would make it difficult or impossible to write any article. Wikipedia guidelines are intended to help to produce good quality articles, not to provide a playground for pedantry. Some commonsense in the application of guidelines is also necessary.

There is the question of whether the topic 'Destructive Cult' is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, rather than a sub-section of the 'Cult' article. I am fairly easy on this, but I see that the 'Cult' article has a banner saying it is possibly too long, so adding a new sub-section doesn't seem like a good idea.

Certainly the issue of destructive or murderous or terrorist cults (however you exactly define the term) is important enough that there should be information about them in Wikipedia, the question is how best to format that information.

IMO the article as it stands at present is a mess. The Steve Hassan definition was originally only included to show that the term 'Destructive Cult' was sometimes used more generally, to refer to all (alleged) cults, not just the murderous ones. But now it seems to have become the main definition for the article, which is just silly.

Some editors seem to have removed material without giving enough time for prior discussion, or without apparently making the effort themselves to source material which they, quite justifiably, feel is insufficiently sourced. That's what I meant by 'destructive editing'. I don't think that's the way to proceed. EmmDee 14:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi EmmDee, the policy on Wikipedia is that unsourced material, and particularly negative unsourced material, should be 'removed aggressively without discussion',
IIRC, that was a statement by Wikipedia's (co)founder, Jimmy Wales. Wikipedia guidelines are quite lengthy, and IMO sometimes convoluted. I also recall a statement/guideline somewhere that Wikipedia guidelines are not set in stone, but need to be applied with discretion and common sense, or words to that effect.
and that the onus to provide a source is on the person who adds the material or wishes to keep it, not the one removing it. This requirement is not unreasonable or pedantic, it is the fundamental philosophy of an encyclopedia that is based on reference material and not original research. If you think about it, if that were not the policy, people could add reams of questionable or controversial material until someone could 'prove' there was no source for it -- surely that would be quite unreasonable. If someone wants to assert something in an article, surely it is reasonable to expect that s/he has some reliable source to back up what s/he is saying. Otherwise, it begs the question -- Where did they get the idea from in the first place? Unsourced material it is at best original research and at worst no more than someone's personal opinion.
Having said that, 'sourced' doesn't mean 'a word-for-word quote'; it is sufficient that the source supports the edit without relying upon the editor's own interpretation or synthesis of the source material.
Yes, but I would argue that the two cites I supplied do support the original definition (now removed). Some (reasonable) synthesis of the supporting source material is allowable IMO, if text is not to be restricted to word-for-word quotes.
As for whether 'enough time' was given for prior discussion, a very generous approach was taken here. Far from abruptly removing the material, the issue was raised on this talk page over five months ago and tags placed on the article. No-one came forth with any sources.
Yes they did. Smee on 3 June 2007 posted 'Paper on bioterrorism discusses two "cults"' which I thought was just about enough to validate the basic concept of an article on destructive cults. Nobody said it wasn't. Then, 5 months later, out of the blue, material starts getting deleted. That's how I see it anyway, though I can appreciate that others might see it differently.
The earlier definition you refer to was original research, i.e. the editor's own personal definition of 'destructive cult'. If you think an alternative opening paragraph could be drafted using your sources, why not try your hand at one? (However I seem to recall there are WP:RS issues surrounding the "Religious Tolerance" site, others might know more about this).
PS - I agree with you that the current article is a mess, but I think the best way to resolve it is not by 'filling in the gaps' with original research, but to move the existing sourced material to the relevant articles on those subjects. I doubt whether an article about a term devised by Steven Hassan is notable enough for its own article. -- Really Spooky 16:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the best way to resolve it would be to re-instate the earlier definition, but this time backed up with cites. The article should primarily be about this definition, not Steven Hassan's different definition. EmmDee 18:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See also

Per Guide to layout, "(...)A See also section should ideally not (...) links that are only vaguely related to the topic(...)". Including the List of groups referred to as cults is only vaguely related to the article, since 1)The groups listed are only referred to as cults, not cults. 2) Are not necessarily "Destructive cults". Including the link is misleading because it presupposes that the groups listed are destructive. Sfacets 00:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The list of groups referred to as cults is closely related to this article. Most of the groups considered destructive cults are on that list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you verify that? Also the groups considered "destructive" are a tiny minority in that list. Sfacets 07:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am waiting for Lone Wolf's contribution to the discussion, apparently he only has an opinion, not an argument. Sfacets 01:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No coherent arguement has been given for exclusion, and I concur w/ Will Beback. Enough said. -- Lonewolf BC 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To LoneWolf: Please stop disrupting, if you want your edits to be considered, discuss them. So far you haven't joined a single discussion (at least with any personal arguments or input), and yet you persist in making changes. Sfacets 06:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback has et to answer my question - what do you agree with? Sfacets 07:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you rephrase the question? You seem to be asking me to verify that groups in this article are also in List of groups referred to as cults. That's self-evident. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are all the groups "destructive" on that list? You seem to be implying that they are. Sfacets 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they aren't. There'a no implication that a "see also" entry is 100% related to the topic of an article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
See above "...links that are only vaguely related to the topic..." Sfacets 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a vague relatuionship. It's clear. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It isn't clear, it is misleading. Sfacets 01:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't you compromise and have something like: ' [General ] List of groups referred to as cults. (Most groups listed are non-lethal)'?

As to whether there needs to be a link in this article, to the more general List of groups referred to as cults, rather than just a link (presumably) from the main 'Cult' article, I'm easy. I can't see it does any harm, or takes up undue space.EmmDee 17:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Two more sources for term 'Destructive Cult' ?

Two more possible sources for 'Destructive Cult' in the sense of 'murderous cult'

1. APA online. Monitor on Psychology, Volume 33, No. 10 November 2002 'Cults of hatred' [3]

[...] 'A destructive cult is an authoritarian regime, which uses deception when recruiting as well as mind-control techniques to make a person dependent and obedient, he [Hassan] said.

'Al Qaeda fulfills the criteria for a destructive cult, Hassan said. "We need to apply what we know about destructive mind-control cults, and this should be a priority with the war on terrorism. We need to understand the psychological aspects of how people are recruited and indoctrinated so we can slow down recruitment. We need to help counsel former cult members and possibly use some of them in the war against terrorism." '

2. Commentary: John Walker and The Fatal Flaw in Our War on Terrorism! FactNet, 1/25/02, Internet. Republished Cultic Studies Review Vol. 1, No. 1, 2002 [4]

[...] 'America's current war on terrorism is perilously flawed without a powerfully-executed, inoculative and preventative educational program on the tactics of mind control and destructive cults that is widely available in every language where these cults exists.

[...] 'Widespread education on how mind control works in destructive cults is the first line of cost effective prevention and population inoculation that finally deals with the real causes of the manufacturing system that creates martyrs and terrorists. '

I think the APA is a RS, and Cultic Studies Review has a fairly impressive Editorial Board: [5]

Also: Death Cults: Murder, Mayhem and Mind Control Publisher: Virgin Publishing (September 2002) ISBN-10: 0753506440; ISBN-13: 978-0753506448 [6]

'Book Description 'A chilling insight into cults and their leaders worldwide. From Charles Manson's 'family' of the late 1960s to the horrific Ten Commandments of God Killings in Uganda in March 2000, seemingly deluded and brainwashed followers of cults and their megalomaniac leaders have been responsible for many of history's most shocking killings. Jack Sargeant has compiled twelve essays featuring cults about whom very little has previously been written, such as the Russian castration sect and the Japanese Aum doomsday cult that leaked sarin gas into Tokoyo's subways.'

Not sure if this one is RS, and also it doesn't use the term 'Destructive Cult' as such. EmmDee 23:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Have rolled-back article to version of 17:41 10 Oct 07 by Lonewolf BC, and added cites for use of term 'Destructive Cult'. Hope this is OK.EmmDee 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)