Talk:List of groups referred to as cults

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of groups referred to as cults article.
Article policies
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Previous discussion have been archived. Editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to see also
Another article, previously at "List of deadly cults", was the source of some content merged into this page. That article (with history) is available at Talk:List of purported cults/Merged; its talk page is at Talk:List of purported cults/Talk-Merged, and explains why this all was done.


Contents

[edit] Request for comment--inclusion of "homosexuality" without a reliable source

Entries in this "List of groups referred to as cults" are required to be sourced to a reliable source. "Homosexuality" is included with nebulous references to homosexuals allegedly operating as cults--this is not homosexuality AS A cult and is quite homophobic, especially absent the required accurate RS for inclusion. Yet it keeps getting reverted back. Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it again, if someone has verifiable and reliable sources that academics see homosexuals belonging to an actual cult then wikipedia should devote an article to such an unknown phenomena. Although the phrase "cult of homosexuality" was in one of the sources it likely was used as an expression, possibly homophobicly. "Cult of youth" would be included under the same mistaken interpretation. Benjiboi 05:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even up for discussion without RS? I can just as easily add unsourced statements that dog owners are a cult, along with Cheeseheads from Green Bay Wisconsin, mainstream religions, and people who enjoy sexual role play. No sourcing, no inclusion, revert on sight. Lawrence § t/e 06:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the criteria for the list is that each entry has to be an actual group. I don't think this entry refers to a cohesive group, just to individuals with common orientation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it would be just as invalid to call heterosexuality a cult. I doubt that anybody could see that as anything but ludicrous, and it's analogous... --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The criteria allow for groups to be very loosely associated by their individual practice. Will's theory about cohesion doesn't hold up. However, it is wrong to include Homosexualy as a cult because that's not what the reference said. It talked about a group of homosexuals surrounding power in England at a certain time. That's a reasonable title for this reference; It's not homophobic; and It's true to the list criteria. SV (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It may be that, in certain times and places, some homosexuals have formed a recognizable group. If that's the case we should identify the specific group, for example, "19th-century upper-class homosexuals in London". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Broadly AGF someone may have heard the term or seen it and said "gee they must be an actual cult - I thought they just did hair" then finding a book with the phrase seemed to support the inclusion. Frankly this whole list needs work but as someone who's somewhat familiar with LGBT history I'm quite sure that homosexuality isn't a cult. There likely are or were gay cults and many gays who have been in cults but the group as a whole doesn't even meet the list criteria. Benjiboi 06:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It may have had cultish elements 2000-3000 years ago but not really since, and certainly not in the 21st Century. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to see what this cult's practices and modes of worship could be defined as... Orderinchaos 13:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What about a criteria that we have at least two unique and independent of each other sources for inclusion here? I can seriously probably dig up a lone "passable" RS that says... well, that anything is a cult. The Cult of Lawrence, the Cult of Playstation, the Cult of Will Beback, the Cult of Cheddar Cheese Consumption. Thoughts? Lawrence § t/e 07:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Requiring two sources is an idea that has been mentioned several times before and I don't recall seeing any strenuous objections. It'd be reasonable to have a grace period to add sources. Some obscure groups might drop off simply because there is too little coverage of them to find two sources that meet the criteria. It wouldn't affect the homosexuality entry, which appears to have two reliable sources. However, as many of us have said, it doesn't belong for other reasons. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Requiring two sources sounds like a good idea. DurovaCharge! 08:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vampires

I myself being a real non-living non~breathing vampire it is to my distaste that people believe real vampires are just a cult of posers. News flash: vampires don't exist so unless you worship satan and get some evil power from him, you are all just creepy wannabes. If you still think you are a vampire than you should get help, because even the article on vampires on wikipedia says they are a mythological creature. HihiouZabimaru is the one who thinks he is a vampire. He only wrote the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HihiouZabimaru (talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] publication syndicates and the effects of networking

Networks that funnel information into publication syndicates increase the probability that a cult (as representative of a special interest) causes harm -- one reason why both syndicates and cults are included within the criminology discipline. Marcia L. Neil/beadtot 66.239.212.82 (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of the Following

Why were these removed? I'm going to put them back unless someone can explain why not. It doesn't matter if they are a cult or not, but it matters that a newspaper refers to them as a cult. So the above qualify. 71.29.24.216 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Three of those are not groups, which is a criterion for inclusion in this list. In the case of the Catholic Church, it was not referred to by the media as a "cult". Instead the article simply quotes a politician who says that. Again, that's outside the criteria for this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Will, hate to burst your bubble here, but many of the groups included are not called a cult by a reliable source. As we haven't defined cult, we cannot possibly say who is a reliable source for calling a group a cult, only reliable sources for a group having been referred to as a cult. Do you see the difference? It's irrelevant who said it if it is in a reliable source. Editors and journalists have no special authority in this area. Either a group has been recorded as having been referred to as a cult or it hasn't. Gatorgalen (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria change proposal: two sources

Per the discussion two months ago (#Request for comment--inclusion of "homosexuality" without a reliable source), and some previous discussions, I propose that we extend the existing criteria to require two sources for entries in the "Groups referred to as "cult" in the media" section. We've discussed this proposal before vaguely and the reception seemed positive, but the change was never implemented. In recent days I've tried to find additional sources for groups that have only one source, and we should continue adding sources as we find them. The chief practical effect would be to eliminate entries for very obscure groups (True Buddha Lineage) and groups that have been called "cults" in an offhand manner (Modern architeture) or perhaps as an exercise in clever writing (Wikipedia). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Probably controversial groups and organizations that have been referred to as such in more mainstream generally agreed upon WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources, will have been characterized as such in more than just one passing reference. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Please write out and let us edit the proposed criterion before committing to polling support. As you know, every word gets used as the thin end of the wedge by intractable opponents of this article's existence, so a poorly worded criterion is worse than none.
Because some editors previously seemed concerned about losing significant listings with two sources, as a compromise I propose that one media sublist have only one reliable source with a disclaimer noting less significance, but another sublist be required to have two reliable sources. This would also give plenty of time to find second sources for existing single-source listings. If the one-source list seems insignificant after a suitable period of evaluation, then the next step could be to eliminate it – although it might prove useful as an "incubator" for the hurdle of obtaining two sources by inexperienced passing editors.
I leaned toward this concept (Archive 7#Multiple and reputable sources) at one time after Lsjzl (20:40, 28 June 2006) complained about what turned out to be a single-source technical unfairness due to a page down at the Washington Post.
Also see Archive 8: "8. {New rule to implement Multiple Sources}" and Archive 8#List Purposes and Principles "The compromise is that multiple sources can be implemented in sublists, and the single source lists can be appropriately disclaimed. Milo 10:33, 25 Jul 2006"
Interesting that The Cult of Mac, originally listed because of the lawbreaking death-threat cult (rather than the benign operating-system-religion cult that may have exited fan-cultdom), actually does have two reliable sources including the subject-expert professional reporter's book mentioned in the Chronicle article. Milo 22:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Milo, for compiling those previous discussions. I think that instead of having an incubator it would be simpler to have a phase-in period, i.e. waiting to impose the criteria for a month or so after the change is agreed upon to allow time for additional sources to be found. The majority of "media" entries have two sources already.
The currennt criteria begins:
  • Inclusion is based on a single reference by a reliable source that refers to the group:
If we're willing to include the "scholars" section then the change would simply be to:
  • Inclusion is based on two or more references by reliable source that refers to the group:
If we wanted to limit the change to the "media" section it would have to be much wordier.
  • Inclusion is based on a single scholarly reference or on two or more references by reliable sources that refers to the group:
On reflection, I think we might as well extend it to the "scholars" section as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

←Taking your last point first, requiring two sources in the academic (not "scholars") section, is very controversial.

Considering two references for the academic list:

• First, the academic listing criteria are already so strict that two academic references would be an unreasonable listing burden. (For example, the merely part time Assistant Professor Noll (Jung Cult (Jungian psychology)), was demoted to the media section, since he was also a part time clinical psychologist, and it couldn't be assumed or easily proved that he had "published extensively" in "sociological or psychological journals".).

• Second, unlike popular media usages, scientific cultic studies use specific and peer-reviewed sociological scientific criteria for what group is or isn't a cult (say, according the peer-reviewed characteristics journal-published by authority A, group B, but not group C, is concluded to significantly match with the characteristics of an A-defined cult).

• Third, unlike throwaway media news stories that are typically written in a week or so, one scientific reference can represent a book or study with years of careful research that may have no duplicate. These scientific books and papers are also valuable to researchers for the other references they contain. (And this is not an easy subject to seriously research. I'm currently studying the important scientific cultic study by Alexander and Rollins, 1984, obtained only with difficulty in paper.)

• Fourth, to require two scientific references would set a bad precedent for articles on the Intelligent Design controversy, the global warming deniers, and worse to come (—let's not go there).

• Fifth, the option of challenge for cause remains open to opposers of any particular scientific reference, but when it actually happened here it was anti-scientific, group-serving drivel. On this page last year, a member who improperly delisted his own anti-scientific group (they elsewhere claimed only they could cure cancer), blatantly attacked the supposed inadequacy of a single scientific reference to the history of scientific cultic studies given under court oath as expert scientific testimony (ref. Gordon Melton's statement that modern meanings of c-u-l-t dated from 1920 on). Melton's scientific credibility was trivially attacked and that attack was leveraged into removal of the 1920+ criterion. (IMHO, done for groups to list major religions as cults in simple retaliation, never mind science, WP:NPOV, or the dictionary.)

Here's what actually happened when WP:LOGRTAC let the camel's nose of POV anti-science into the tent: The most recent end result of the attack on the single scientific reference was the avoidable controversy of 15 posts on whether homosexuality is a listable cult and 13 more posts. Whether homosexuality exists as a cult or not, it existed before 1920, so it and many other historic controversies (which side was the real cult in the Albigensians/Cathars Massacre), or pointless undecidables (is it fair to RCC to list the middle ages "cult of Mary" (find down to "Vaquero100 17:13, 20 July 2006"), all go away under the principle of WP:Avoidance, using the simple sociology history reference to Gordon Melton. Therefore, I call for restoration of the previously successful 1920+ criterion:

"Groups referenced must not have been named by reliable sources to independently exist prior to 1920 in their substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices."

Considering two references for the media list only:

If you want to modify criterion #1, I suggest the place to start by building on existing consensus, is with the already debated and poll consensed, but unimplemented version of the redrafted criteria rhetoric. (See Archive 9: Rhetoric redraft for consensus poll, with all six of the consensed redrafted criteria just above it). The Rhetoric Redraft version combines and clarifies existing meaning for the lead-in ("criterion #0") and criterion #1 which reads as follows:

1. Listing is based on a single reference to a reliable source,

(A) as a "cult" in North American English; or,
(B) as a "sect" or "cult" in British English only if contextually intended to mean "cult" in North American English; or,
(C) as any foreign language word or phrase with a plain text translation and contextual intention to mean "cult" in North American English;
(D) using any non-excluded Reliable Source definition.

Proposed draft A for two media sources:

1. Listing is based on a single academic or government reference, or two media references, to reliable sources,

(A) as a "cult" in North American English; or,
(B) as a "sect" or "cult" in British English only if contextually intended to mean "cult" in North American English; or,
(C) as any foreign language word or phrase with a plain text translation and contextual intention to mean "cult" in North American English;
(D) using any non-excluded Reliable Source definition.

Note the substitution of "academic" for "scholarly", as "academic" is long vetted in the academic section title and academic listing criteria. Milo 08:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 06:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's even better. I agree with your analysis and drafting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Any further discussion? If not I propose that we change the criteria in one month (May 15) and remove all non-compliant entries at that time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I assume we're leaving in the other parts of the criteria:
2. as a group (organizations and sets of individual practitioners, including those named by their technical practice of cults, qualify as groups);
3. as such within the last 50 years;
4. as not qualifying as a personality cult (heads of state), fan-cult of popular culture, or a group that doesn't have an actual following (fictional or self-nominated groups).
Regarding point D above, the consensus long ago was to exclude Rick Ross. If we're going to mention excluded reliable sources, then we should spell that out a bit. However I think that the overall standards for sourcing on WP have been stiffened so that Rick Ross would not be considered a reliable source anyway. Can we drop D? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Will Beback (20:56): "Can we drop D?"
How about just cutting "Reliable Source"? (See "Proposed draft A" strike edit above.) D is less practical to implement with "Reliable Source", since very few media articles provide definitional certainty about their use of c-u-l-t.
The reason for retaining the rest of (D) is that too many readers are confused by the current indirect rhetorical logic to accept all c-u-l-t definitions with specific exclusions (i.e., exclude personality, fictional, fan-cults, etc). D now states this directly, and would help avoid the too many talk page explanations I and others have written to explain this point.
Will Beback (20:56): "leaving in the other parts of the criteria"
This would be a reasonable opportunity to upgrade 2,3,4,5 to the consensed but not implemented Rhetoric Redraft versions which were written as a package. Not doing so will lead to problems with the current "as" construction of 2,3,4.
The Rhetoric Redraft version (see Archive 9: Rhetoric redraft for consensus poll, with the consensed redrafted criteria just above it), without the 1920+ criteria and so renumbered here 2 through 5, reads as follows:
2. Organizations, and sets of individual practitioners, including those referenced or named by their technical practice of cult (cultus), qualify as groups.
3. Listable groups must be referenced within the last 50 years.
4. Excluded from listing are cultural or personality cults (artistic, celebrity or political fan-cults), or groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups). If a reference claims that a group's other cult activities are more significant than its fan-cult, it becomes listable.
5. In list items where the reference keywords are different from "cult" only, each reference to a group is followed by parentheses containing the actual word(s) referring to them; formatted like (secte), or (cult/secte/sekte) for multiple references.
This should not be controversial since the Rhetoric Redraft version was not intended to change the existing criteria meanings, but only to clarify them. Milo 06:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, so to recap:
1. Listing is based on a single academic or government reference, or two media references, to reliable sources,
(A) as a "cult" in North American English; or,
(B) as a "sect" or "cult" in British English only if contextually intended to mean "cult" in North American English; or,
(C) as any foreign language word or phrase with a plain text translation and contextual intention to mean "cult" in North American English;
(D) using any non-excluded definition.
2. Organizations, and sets of individual practitioners, including those referenced or named by their technical practice of cult (cultus), qualify as groups.
3. Listable groups must be referenced within the last 50 years.
4. Excluded from listing are cultural or personality cults (artistic, celebrity or political fan-cults), or groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups). If a reference claims that a group's other cult activities are more significant than its fan-cult, it becomes listable.
5. In list items where the reference keywords are different from "cult" only, each reference to a group is followed by parentheses containing the actual word(s) referring to them; formatted like (secte), or (cult/secte/sekte) for multiple references.
If I understnad correctly, most of this text has been agreed-upon in previous discussions that reached consensus but after which no one ever updated the criteria. These appear to be overdue improvements that already have agreement behind them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


<<<< How much more OR this article needs? The tag has been there since way before Jan 2008. Adding more OR by means of defining a criteria first published in Wikipedia is not the best way forward. Making efforts to reduce the OR is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is more than 100% sourced and we're proposing to make it at least 150% sourced. That's an improvement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted significant changes made to this criteria without any discussion or consensus. I urge editors to work together to improve this article rather than unilaterally changing material that was agreed upon through many lengthy discussions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I tried to remove what was needed so that the tags that have been there more or less forever could be removed. As it stands now, OR tag restored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Study about the use of the term in US media

This can be useful context for editors: van Driel, Barend and James T. Richardson. Research Note Categorization of New Religious Movements in American Print Media. Sociological Analysis 1988, 49, 2:171-183

Utilization of "Sect" and "Cult" in the Print Media: In her content analysis, Lindt (1979) encountered the concepts "sect" and/or "cult" in approximately two-thirds of the newspaper and news weekly issues she investigated. The results of the present study also indicate that the press has had few reservations in attaching the labels of "sect" and "cult" to the various NRMs. There are sharp differences, however, depending on the time periods and the groups concerned.
An analysis of the use of these two categories, in both the headlines (Table 2) and body (Table 3) of contextual units, reveals that a shift took place. After an initial preference for "sect," as a descriptive term for NRMs, the print media later chose to embrace the more pejorative term "cult." When we juxtapose Tables 2 and 3, an unexpected discrepancy emerges. In the contents of contextual units dealing with NRMs, the preference for "cult" is only manifest in the period of November, 1978-April, 1979, which is immediately post- Jonestown tragedy.9 Before and after this period there is no clear choice of terms. This is not he case with regard to categorization in headlines. Here the shift from sect to cult is more dramatic and enduring.10
In the first two periods there is an obvious preference for the use of the category "sect" in headlines. Thereafter "cult" is encountered far more often. The lack of correspondence between the contents and headlines of contextual units (for example between May, 1976, and October, 1976, the contents of units clearly leaned towards "cults," while the headlines clearly leaned toward "sect") points to the possibility that the writers of the various contextual units and the creators of their headlines are not the same individuals (copy editors are oftentimes responsible for headlines, for instance). Further evidence that this may be the case is the finding that on various occasions headlines made explicit reference to "cult," while the (sometimes lengthy) body eschewed any mention of the concept.
These serendipitous discoveries also suggest that it is probable that these disparate persons have different approaches to the subject matter. Unfortunately, no further investiga- tion of this discrepancy is possible here. Explicit references to "cults" peaked between November, 1978, and April, 1979, both in percentages and in absolute numbers. This has declined considerably in recent years. Both "sect" and "cult" were encountered less often between May, 1981, apd October, 1981, and between November, 1983, and April, 1984. The term "New Religious Movements" that numerous social scientists now employ was applied in print media accounts in only three instances. A conspicuous hiatus is thus again found to exist between the world of the news media reporter and social scientists. A new light is shed on the matter when we examine the categorization of the comparison groups.
Although they were often referred to as "religious sects," reference to the comparison groups by use of the concept "cult" was found in only one instance in 80 units, and then in an indirect fashion. It is perhaps more striking that in discussions of NRMs as an umbrella category, the press consistently favored the term "cult" instead of "sect." This holds true for both categorization in headlines (Table 4) ("cult" alone, 63 times; "sect" alone, 0 times) and in the body of contextual units (Table 5) "cult" alone, 51 times; "sect" alone, 0 times). In 26 cases both were employed in a unit's contents. Furthermore, it is in general discussions of NRMs that we found the concept "cult" most often (77% of the headlines and 92% of the contents). Only a slight minority of contextual units refrained from the usage of this concept when covering the new religions in this manner.
When we examine the coverage of individual groups we observe that the Unification Church (UC) was labeled a "cult" (or a "sect" for that matter) most often in absolute numbers, but not in proportionate terms. Various other groups scored higher on this dimen- sion of coverage. Equally pertinent was the unique position occupied by Transcendental Meditation (TM). In general media discussions of NRMs, TM is seldom referred to.
The print media seemed to locate TM outside the realm of "cults;" it was never labeled a "cult" (or "sect") in headlines, and only once within a unit's contents.There was a certain amount of confusion as to which label, "sect" or "cult," was the most appropriate for NRMs in the print media studies. Labeling of NRMs varied from one contextual unit to another and, as Tables 3 and 5 reveal, multiple units (42 in total) referred to NRMs as both "sects" and "cults." These were then used interchangeably, without an explanation of their respective meanings. Somewhat confusing discourses were the result, highlighted by sentences and phrases such as: "A little-known fundamentalist Christian sect, which some theologians believe to be the nation's second largest cult" (a reference to The Way International in the Washington Post, October 13, 1981); "The right to temporarily remove cult members from their sects" (New York Times, May 24, 1981); Amongst the more feared special interest groups, according to cult leaders, are organizations of parents of children in the various religious sects" (Washington Post, December 16, 1978).
Rarely was an attempt made to define these arbitrarily applied concepts, and on the occasions when this did take place, anti-cultist definitions were much more prevalent than social-scientific insights. Furthermore, merely by adopting the concept "cult" as a descriptive category, NRMs were, willingly or not, condemned to occupy a position in the same category of groups that includes the People's Temple, the Manson Family, and other marginal movements which evoke public fear and horror. A great deal of effort has been expended within the social-scientific tradition to unravel the complexities of marginal religious organizations. Unfortunately it seems that the message is somehow totally lost to the majority of those employed by the major print media. Because of the level of professionalism that characterizes the staff of the newspapers and news weeklies in our sample, it can be expected that the situation is even worse among the more local and popular media, as can be deduced from the findings of Bromley et al. (1979). They note, for instance, that most anti-cult oriented stories were printed in small community newspapers.
The failure of the print media to recognize social-scientific efforts in the area of religious movement organizations (as our previous research [van Driel and Richardson, 1985] also shows) impels us to add yet another failing mark to the media report card Weiss (1985) has constructed to assess the media's reporting of the social sciences."

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources?

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/794/eg6.htm First refers to members of the Bahá'í Faith as "Atheists" and then claims it has links with Zionism. This source is clearly biased, making unfounded claims and even misspells the name of the Bahá'í Faith's founder.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2453 This article critiques the Bahá'í Faith using an interpretation of the Bible, it ends with: "The Baha’i movement is greatly at variance with biblical revelation. The system must be opposed. Its sincere disciples should be exposed to the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, our Lord." This shows a clear bias and I believe more reliable sources need to be found. Dayyanb (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that either of those websites meets the general definition of "reliable source" for this or any WP article. I just did a search of a newspaper archive and could not find any unambiguous description of the Baha'is as a "cult". I also searched scholarly papers and found one that qualifies. On account of that I'm going to drop the non-reliable sources, add the academic paper, and move the Baha'i entry from "media" to "academic sources". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, anyone interested in the topic may enjoy the very interesting (and long) paper, "Sects in the Islamic World", by Mark Sedgwick, published by Nova Religio. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a completely different analysis, which is another reason why this whole area should be avoided with the 1920+ criterion. Milo 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
←Every group listed at LOGRTAC can claim bias of some kind, so that isn't a reason for delisting. What matters is whether the source has enough staff to check published facts for accuracy, and whether they have a reasonable reputation for doing so.
Al-Ahram is a mainstream newspaper with a good reputation. That makes them a reliable source, no matter their known Egyptian government bias.
WP:V reads, "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." Apologeticspress.org/aboutap has an adequate-for-fact-checking staff of 15 or so, seems to check their mundane facts in a way that makes them useful for quotations of cultic studies scholars, and some definitions of "cult", so I have used them for that purpose. However, they consciously dismiss the rational evidence of evolution, and in doing so misclaim what is science: "Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth." That extreme view makes them a questionable source on issues of science, and such could cloud their judgment of what group might be a cult in the scientific sociological sense.
Yet they are probably expert in the theological counter-cult definition of cult, a well-reasoned Biblical interpretation used to define the Roman Catholic Church and other old beliefs as cults.
The The Baha'i Movement by Wayne Jackson, M.A. appears to be using a valid counter-cult definition, does not seem to wander into populism or sociology claims, and concludes with your quotation above. Given that Apologeticspress.org remains within their field of expertise (counter-cult), that their opposition is Biblically-reasoned with references (a hallmark of reliability), civil to opponents (not extreme speech), and that all definitions of cult not specifically excluded from LOGRTAC are accepted here, Apologeticspress.org appears to be a conditionally reliable source in this class of cases (counter-cult theology).
However, Bahá'í was founded before 1920. For over a year (August 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007) the whole mess of listing major religions as though they were populist-definition cults, and listing undecidable antique usages of "cult", went away through WP:Avoidance with the 1920+ criterion supported by a reliable source scientific rationale: "Groups referenced must not have been named by reliable sources to independently exist prior to 1920 in their substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices."
If you want Bahá'í off this list (along with other major or old religions that most global citizens don't think of as excessive-member-control groups or destructive cults) please support a restoration of the 1920+ criterion. Milo 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this a List of groups referred to as cults, or a List of groups that most global citizens don't think of as excessive-member-control groups or destructive cult? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
To WP:Avoid the issue, I'll support a redirect :) Milo 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Not that funny. The problem with the arguments you made in this page, is that is demonstrate to all that the intention of this article is not what it claims to be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Jossi (23:06): "Not that funny."
No problem – if you think your joke article title fell flat, just strike it out. Milo 10:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Milo is correct about Al-Ahram - from a glance at the linked page it appeared to be some blog. I will restore that entry and source, though I will leave off the Apologetics Press link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

I removed the tree tags this morning because I say no discussion here on exactly what to do to correct the problems being cited. If a tag is not accompanied by a discussion about exactly what is wrong, the tag is not legitimate. The discussion needs to be specific and not simply saying the article is not NPOV. Where exactly is the problem. Other editors should be able to read the discussion, make the corrections (or arrive at an alternative solution), and remove the tag. If that is not possible, then the tag is removed. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR violation tag

(since last year)

  • Section List of groups referred to as cults#Reliability of sources is pure OR, fitting a guideline page but not an article in mainspace
  • Lead is inconsistent with WP:LEAD. Read the style guideline for what a lead should contain
  • Criteria - Another OR violation. There is no such criteria published anywhere. It is the invention of editors, and as such usnuitable. Consensus cannot trump our basic content policies.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestions are (a) remove the Reliability of sources section, or move it to a footnote; and (b) Keep the criteria as simple as possible: e.g. This list contains groups referred to as "cults" or "sects" by academic sources and the media. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

jossi (21:27): "Lead is inconsistent with WP:LEAD"
There is nothing in WP:LEAD that applies to list articles.
jossi (21:27): "It is the invention of editors, and as such usnuitable."
It does not follow that it is unsuitable because it is the invention of editors. WP editors are asked to be idea inventive of articles to research and publish, required to be source-research inventive to find and apply sources, and required to be rhetorically inventive to avoid the project's breach of copyright law.
jossi (21:27): "Criteria - Another OR violation."
No, there is no OR violation because the criteria are publisher's notices (like disambiguation notices), not article content. WP:NOR therefore does not apply to criteria, so consensus trumps.
jossi (21:27): "There is no such criteria published anywhere."
There need not be such criteria published anywhere.
By logic, editors are required to near-equivalently invent criteria not previously published:
• Editors are required to publish criteria for list membership.
• Any attempt to require uniform criteria previously published elsewhere leads to potential list copyright violations, due to identical criteria algorithms and their resulting list outputs.
• The Wikipedia criteria for list output should contain creative editorial input, to result in creatively different lists than others have published, because creative invention is the basis of copyright.
• Since editors must publish criteria, yet should not exactly copy criteria, that leaves modifying or inventing criteria.
• Criteria are created by rulecrafting, meaning that tiny changes in modifying wording can produce huge changes in list output, so modified criteria tend to be unique.
• The necessary amount of rulecrafting-changes, required in any previously published criteria to produce a creatively different list, is the functional near-equivalent of inventing unique criteria.
Therefore, Wikipedia list criteria must in practice be the invention of Wikipedia editors. Q.E.D.
jossi (21:27): "List of groups referred to as cults#Reliability of sources is pure OR"
Again, no, because it is intended as a publisher's notice, not article content. WP:NOR therefore does not apply, because like other Wikipedia notices, it is text more or less intended to be original. Unlike the intro criteria, it has the problem that it resembles text article content, yet this is a list article, so the article content is... a list.
This doesn't mean that any utility statements of referenceable facts should not be referenced - for credibility and to WP:AVOID these OR charges they should - but it does mean that Wikipedia publisher's notice statements are not required to be WP:NOR referenced – if they serve a notice purpose to assist the main functioning of the list article. That certainly includes notices of encyclopedic neutrality, and other guide or policy-based statements. On the other hand, does Wikipedia notice-claim based on essay, guide, or policy (or just consense here?) that "Inclusion in the media list does not prove, in any manner, that a group functions as a "cult" or as a "sect"..."?
This mitigates the problem of some statements that can be referenced, but that you have opposed referencing on guiderule grounds. For example, passing entry-contribution editors routinely misunderstand the concept of WP:V reliable sources, so there's a cross-namespace link to it. Your proffered construction of not instructing passing editors in reliable source policy is unacceptably unfair to most editors, and breaches the spirit of encyclopedic teaching. Therefore, the likely alternatives are the current WP:IAR cross-namespace link, attempting to abbreviate WP:V reliable sources here, or a frank change of the WP cross-namespace linking guiderule.
#Reliability of sources exists because of Wikipedia's compelling interest in preventing inferences that fear a gross lack of neutrality, or harbor suspicions arising from an unstated purpose. #Reliability of sources was developed almost entirely by editors who wanted to avoid reflexive POV charges by readers and other editors with no knowledge of cultic-studies theory. Their collective editing has demanded that Wikipedia make several kinds of emphatic statements to indicate that the media sources may lack a standard of proof offered by the academic sources, and that LOGRTAC is intended to be a neutrally-selective list of references to cult-mentions, by reliable sources, for "further research".
jossi (21:27): "Keep the criteria as simple as possible"
But as Einstein reportedly invoked ...not too simple. With every new wikilawyer attack that intractable article opponents come up with, it's likely that the criteria will somewhat increase in complexity. Milo 10:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Your responses only strengthen my arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the crypto-compliment. Milo 10:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Not cryptic, but very unambiguous: your arguments only show that you are absolutely mistaken. Do you want to really know what active editors here think of your arguments? Ask them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
jossi (14:34): "editors here think of your arguments?" It's too early for that. Later, I will want to know what they think of the whole point-counterpoint debate, not just my first-round arguments.
When you issue puffs like, "Your responses only strengthen my arguments" and "absolutely mistaken", yet make no arguments nor highlight mistakes, you are telegraphing that you are out of points, and only gainsays remain in your quiver.
Taken at face value, your first round of OR claims and charges are nearly all demolished, and you have yet to present counter-arguments to prevail over points I made in the first round. Your claim that I'm mistaken is a mere preamble to a second round of debate, in which you must actually make arguments which persuade me and/or others that I'm mistaken. Milo 08:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Demolished? ROLF! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Weighty counter-arguments might restand your positions, but without them barely a chimney remains undemolished. Milo 10:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two positions argued

I agree with jossi that this list’s lead and inclusion criteria are contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Here’s why:

1. According to Wikipedia guidelines on article leads and selection criteria as applied to lists, “Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources”. The membership criteria of this list is wholly invented by Wikipedia editors (whether by so-called ‘consensus’ or otherwise), and not based on definitions made by reputable sources. In particular, there is no explanation, by reference to a definition made by a reputable source, as to why –

(a) references to groups as cults cease to be such upon expiry of 50 years from the date of publication (criterion 3);

(b) references to groups as personality cults or ‘fan-cults of popular culture’ (whatever that is) do not count as ‘references to groups as cults’ (criterion 4).

2. According to Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV as applied to lists, “However short or schematic a list description, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies, including: It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.” In particular, the current user-invented criteria 3 & 4 -

(a) are designed to impose ‘the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views’ as the correct one by excluding references to certain groups based on personal views of individual users that certain uses of the word ‘cult’ are not legitimate;

(b) in any event are contrary to the description of the list’s content as contained in the title: this is a ‘List of groups referred to as cults’, not a ‘List of cults’. A group does not cease to be a ‘group referred to as a cult’ just because a Wikipedia editor personally disagrees with a source’s use of the term.

I have no objection in principle to criteria 1 & 2, although I do think they are superfluous because they are bleeding obvious from the article's title (The sole exception being inclusion of groups referred to as 'sects', but this could be dealt with simply by renaming the article 'List of groups referred to as cults or sects'. -- Really Spooky (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The guideline you cite is not consistent with actual Wikipedia practice. It was also written by Jossi. There are dozens of lists with less clear criteria than this one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No, jossi didn’t write those guidelines. The first quote I gave was written by a user named The Placebo Effect [5], and the second, which refers back to WP:NPOV, was written by an editor named Francis Schonken [6]. Both edits to these closely monitored guideline pages created no controversy at all when they were first introduced and, to use your words, they have been ‘stable’ for 6 and 21 months respectively.
In fact it is YOU, Will Beback, who after responding to my comments immediately went to REMOVE the guideline that undermines your position [7]. So it is YOU that is re-writing Wikipedia guidelines to support your position.
I took me quite some time to sort through the diffs and uncover this. Personally it wouldn’t have mattered to me whether jossi wrote them or not, because the guidelines makes good sense regardless of who wrote them. But this sort of ad hominem argument is particularly objectionable, as it is based at worst on deception and at best on a willingness to play fast and loose with accusations without bothering to check the facts first. -- Really Spooky (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
PS - Your argument that the guideline should not be followed because it ‘is not consistent with actual Wikipedia practice’ is circular. Using that logic, Wikipedia should have no guidelines at all: the whole purpose of having guidelines in the first place is to improve the quality of articles. Besides, the creation of illogical and arbitrary rules such as the ‘50-year’ criterion is even more inconsistent with actual Wikipedia practice.
PPS - As for your comment that ‘There are dozens of lists with less clear criteria than this one’, if you read my comments again you will see that my concerns are not based on lack of clarity, but the use of arbitrary criteria invented by Wikipedia editors. -- Really Spooky (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI-influenced guideline?

That jossi-written guideline, which I believe to be a WP:COI-influenced edit, would be this diff at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) IIRC, Jossi originally stealth-added similar material to WP:Lists, and several editors including me made him back off. However, I later discovered that he also added it to WP:Lists (stand alone lists). And according to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia - The Register, 6th February 2008 16:02 GMT, he's done this type of thing elsewhere at Wikipedia. As they state, "...he removed the clause that forbade guru followers from editing articles about their gurus."
Measured by AfD launches, persistence, and audacity such as the WP:Lists example, Jossi is the No.1 long-term opponent of List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC). While it my well-reasoned opinion based on personal experience that jossi has been gaming the system against LOGRTAC's successful criteria at the WP:Lists topics, and I had seen some rumors about his involvement with the topic articles of his group, I didn't know the potential magnitude of his WP:COI agenda as a paid staff member of the Prem Rawat organizations. For better or worse, his agenda has been publicly revealed by an investigation in The Register, followed up by evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence, such as #Backround to Jossi's role on Wikipedia – definitely written by an opponent, but only one among 23 other testimonies.
If Arbcom limits or makes him stop editing the Prem Rawat topics, jossi remains free to engage in yet more pressure of the kind he is exerting at LOGRTAC right now. In my observation of his latest proposed LOGRTAC page version #Proposed version below, his agenda appears to be the removal of many editors' hard work in tweaking NPOV features that have markedly reduced complaints from passing group members. Note jossi's (04:28, 2 May 2008) contrasting opinion of LOGRTAC's success as he states below: "Years of discussion have shown no progress."
In my opinion as a long-time LOGRTAC editor, and based on his revealed and previously known COI editing habits that offset routine WP:AGF, a stealth purpose of his LOGRTAC removals, while being guide-conformationally based as he says, may also be a work-to-rule-type strategy to provoke more NPOV complaints. I believe that he hopes to leverage more NPOV complaints into some opportunistic distractive controversy resulting in the readers' failure of confidence in LOGRTAC. Since this is an opinion, it's only fair to state that I could be wrong about something I've opined; yet if I'm substantially correct, it would be a mistake to either over- or under-estimate his ability to do this.
The above Register story "Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe': When is a cult not a cult?", is a wakeup call to Wikipedia to hobble step-by-step long-term COI-editing agendas. I hope the moderate group members and centrist editors who read and edit here, realize that a polarized stirring up of complaints will inevitably result in more global bad publicity. More bad publicity is not in Wikipedia's nor in any groups' public relations interest. Milo 10:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Before jumping on the bandwagon and using Will Beback's careless comment as a cue to launch another ad hominem diatribe against jossi, you might have bothered to check the facts first. Jossi in fact did NOT write those passages I quoted, which created no controversy when they were introduced and have been part of the guidelines for 6 and 21 months respectively (See my comments to Will Beback above). The list guidelines are the collective work of dozens of editors over five years so this paranoid attempt to paint them as the sabotage of a single editor with an agenda is simply wrong.
You talk about 'gaming the system', but I find it particularly revealing that when I pointed to clear and direct guidelines on the issue, neither you nor Will Beback expressed any desire to work together to help the article to meet the guidelines. Instead, your response was to -
(a) attack the guidelines as corrupted;
(b) attack the person you wrongly assumed had written them; and
(c) immediately remove the 'offending' part of the guidelines.
List guidelines have been a part of Wikipedia longer [8][9] than Milo[10], Will Beback [11] AND jossi[12], so let's stop being silly, shall we? - Really Spooky (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I will not respond that personal attack, from Milo. Hopefully he will refactor that off-topic comment. Milo may want to also read WP:COI, in particular the portion that advises editors not to use a COI argument in content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Milo may also need to refresh his/her memory on WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:CIVILITY ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three positions countered

As best I understand them, your Spooky (17:04) arguments promote three main positions (in my words, mostly not quotes):
  • 1. Wikipedia editors should not invent list criteria.
I've already addressed this position in the "By logic... Q.E.D." portion of Milo (10:33, 30 Apr 2008). The summary is that asking editors to not invent list criteria creates an unreasonable risk of list copyright violation, among all WP lists for the known present and future. It's a dice game with little to gain for Wikipedia, and a lot to lose for the Foundation.
  • 2. No criteria (user invented or not), should exclude any homonyms from a list of word-use references – as that would assert a non-NPOV view, that the listed homonyms (literally in view) are a more correct view than the non-listed homonyms (literally not in view).
Homonyms are words with different meanings that are spelled or pronounced the same way. If this proposal for the interpretation of WP:NPOV was applied to Wikipedia articles, WP:Disambiguation into separate articles would be a forbidden practice. Wikipedia would have to be page-formatted like Wiktionary. Articles would become unsplittably monster-sized. I could continue, but surely it's appropriate to draw the WP:SNOWBALL curtain over this non-starter position.
  • 3. User-invented criteria are personal views of individual users based on so-called 'consensus'.
Spooky (17:04): "personal views of individual users"
Consensus criteria based edits made by individual users are not personal views.
Spooky (17:04): "so-called 'consensus'"
If you are unwilling to accept WP:CONSENSUS then you must either leave Wikipedia voluntarily, or be involuntarily departed the way Sfacets was.
Taking the last simple idea separately, 'List of groups referred to as cults or sects' is a controversial rename because a "sect" can mean a "cult" in the appropriate British-English context, but "sect" does not mean a "cult" in North American English in any context. See Cult#Dictionary definitions of "cult", (British "sect"...).
This rename could result in a major change of adding many outspoken tradition-based churches, to a list intended for nontraditional groups sociologically typed as "cults". These churches would complain loudly, and rightly so, that they were being unfairly listed according to the dictionary and scientific definition of a North American "sect". See Church-sect typology for an explanation of the tension and tradition theory of "cult" vs. "sect". Milo 10:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
And I repeat: this is a ‘List of groups referred to as cults’, not a ‘List of cults’ (and certainly not a 'list intended for nontraditional groups sociologically typed as "cults"' as you assert). A group does not cease to be a ‘group referred to as a cult’ just because a Wikipedia editor personally disagrees with a source’s use of the term. -- Really Spooky (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Spooky. The problem is and has been this: This has been, since early days, an attempt to disguise a "list of cults", as a "List of groups referred to as cults" to avoid being canned for lack of NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed version

  • Moved cross namespace stuff to a footnote
  • Reduced criteria to non-OR formulation
  • Removed NOR tag
  • Removed preface to "academic sources" section. It included partial information and unsourced material. Linking instead to existing articles on the subject
  • Removed multiple links to same site. One is all what is needed. See WP:EL
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no consensus for those changes. As you well know, those criteria have been agreed upon after literally years of discussion. I'm going to revert them. I invite you to make proposals here for future agreement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Years of discussion have shown no progress. I am marking the version I have done with an edit summary of "PROPOSSED VERSION" and self-reverting so that the version can be discussed. I will bring this to RfC for other editors input to compare the two versions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Marked as proposed version ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is the result of years of progress. It went from an article with no criteria at all to one one with a very tight criteria that we've just discussed tightening. If you want a list with a very different criteria I suggest you create it. Nobody is stopping you. What you're proposing here are a set of changes that are unrelated to each other. It's inappropriate to require editors to take the changes as a package. I suggest you propose each individually. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments

A user has requested comment on religion or philosophy for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCreli list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

Requesting input from editors to assess the best of two versions proposed Request made on 04:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC) (RFC still in process so tag month was updated on 1 June 2008 to prevent removal by bot)

[edit] Comments by involved editors

(please be brief)

  • Version B is preferred: (a) Moved cross namespace stuff to a footnote; (b) Reduced criteria to non-OR formulation; (c)Removed preface to "academic sources" section as it included partial information and unsourced material, linking instead to existing articles on the subject; (d) Removed multiple links to same site in EL section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Jossi is saking us to accept a reject a set of unrelated changes. That's not a good way to edit. I think we should take the issues individually.
  • This list is over four years old. The current criteria is the result of literally years of negotiation. It has survived at least five AfDs. For the past year years it has been very stable. One active editor has been trying to delete it since 2004.[13] He's even written guidelines to try to prohibit the current criteria.[14] I don't understand why, after working on this article for four year, Jossi today decides to press this issue again.
  • Wikipedia has thousands of lists. Few, if any, have sourced criteria. According to at least one editor that means those lists are all in violation of NOR. I disagree. Every list has a criteria, whether defined or not and whether in the title or expressed in text. Let's compare this list to to "List of massacres" which has a basic concept tot his list, "List of lawyers" which excludes lawyers who are politicians (thought that seems to have been ignored), "List of African American jurists" which requires that entries be self-identified as "African-American", and "List of important publications in sociology" that has a lengthy criteria, with no apparent source for any of it. This list has a workable criteria that we just recently discussed tightening further. I strongly oppose deleting the current criteria. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Version B. In Version A, criteria 1 & 2 are superfluous to the title, and criteria 3 & 4 are arbitrary. In particular, there is no logical or coherent reason why references before 2 May 1958 should not qualify (and the cutoff date changes every day). The exclusion of 'personality cults' is also similarly arbitrary because most groups on the list are personality cults anyway: Manson family, Jim Jones, etc. etc. -- Really Spooky (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(Note: The long comment debate started at this point was moved to
#Criterion 4 exclusion of personality cults)
  • Neither Both versions strike me as pretty poor. Although "A" gives more context, and allows for better focus, I can concede the context is largely something invented/concocted. I'd be tempted to say "start over." I know this isn't very constructive, but that's what struck me.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm tempted to suggest a re-vamped version of A. First make it two references and not a single reference. Then keep its first two criteria. The third criteria should be changed to "as such since 1920" as this is roughly when sociology began studying these things. Drop 4. Then remove everything that doesn't fit that.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by respondents to the RfC

  • Version B is preferable. It is more direct, and less arbitrary. Why the 50 year time limit for Version A? If you wish to exclude fan-cults and cults of personality, I recommend changing the title to List of religious groups referred to as cults. That would naturally limit the list to groups to which the cult label is more traditionally applied, and exclude groups to which the cult label tends to be only figuratively applied. Nick Graves (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Graves (01:09): "List of religious groups referred to as cults.... and exclude groups to which the cult label tends to be only figuratively applied."
Sociologically, that wouldn't work. Cult-forming is independent of religion, other than religion being the most convenient way to seduce people into a cult. See the Cult article for details.
Graves (01:09): "Why the 50 year time limit...?"
It was the result of three years of consensus debates, but I'll try to condense it. [ Milo 10:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC) continues]
  • Version A On many of these issues, I really have no opinion, primarily because I don't know enough to have an informed opinion. However, I prefer Version A only because it defines the contents of the list. This is useful for various reasons, including the consideration that by listing the criteria, no matter what the criteria are, the average reader who knows little to nothing about the subject will know what exactly is being listed. An alternative way of addressing this is to separate the list into sections that make it clear what kind of cult is being listed, possibly with separations based on the date of the citation as well as the relevant definition of a cult. If the editors decide to eliminate the time scale restriction, in particular, one might create two separate sections for groups defined as "cults" pre-1930, or pre-1958 or whatever the cutoff is, and groups defined as "cults" post-whatever that date is. Also, for academic reasons, someone who is researching one kind of cult will not accidentally start looking up examples of another kind of cult. Kleio08 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linked history of the sliding 50 year rule criterion
The original 1 Apr 2005 purpose was a "time horizon" proposed by Zappaz, then strongly endorsed by Tom Haws, who wrote, "I propose we either say these are meant to be current citations (in the interest of our energy and resources) or we bite off the enormous task of classifying the historic scope of cults. Eventually, I think it would be extremely interesting to say, for a fictitious example, that NYT earlier called Mormonism a cult, but hasn't done so since 1947."
Possibly keying on "1947", Zappaz then proposed 50 years, to which Willmcw compromised after making a counter-proposal of 200 years, and Zappaz edited 50 years into the criteria list at LOGRTAC 03:06, 11 April 2005.
There were actually two time horizon criteria inferable from Tom Haws' proposal:
(a) the years since the group had come into existence, and
(b) the years since the date of the source citation.
Initially on 03:06, 11 April 2005, Zappaz applied 50 years to criterion (a), then at LOGRTAC 20:29, 22 April 2005, Hawstom edited the 50 years to apply to criterion (b). This turned out to allow older groups that had stopped being referred to as cults to get delisted in some accord with the undue weight provisions of NPOV.†
Criterion (a) returned as 150 years, proposed by Antaeus Feldspar, and supported by Will Beback, which Antaeus Feldspar edited into the criteria list at LOGRTAC 15:50, 16 April 2006.
Criterion (a) changed to year-1920-onward, as proposed by Milo. This 1920+ criterion (a), along with confirmation of Hawstom's 50-year criterion (b), were ultimately consensed by 7 of 9 editors, and cairoi edited them into the criteria list at LOGRTAC 00:52, 6 August 2006.
Criterion (a) (1920+ for group existence) and (b) (sliding 50 year limit for citation dates) were redrafted for more clearly worded rhetoric, and consensed by 5 of 6 editors by 01:53, 15 October 2006.
Criterion (a) was removed on 22:41 24 Oct 2008, and criterion (b) is presently proposed for removal.
[ Milo 10:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC) continues]
End of Linked history of the sliding 50 year rule criterion
†Arbitrary compromise is better than no attempt to relieve undue weight, though POV anti-reporters cannot be satisfied by any NPOV means.
Controversial articles are edited in circles, and this may return the article full circle back to some of the edit-war-causing problems which Zappaz and Tom Haws identified three years ago that were solved with criteria (a) and (b). The period of over a year when they were both in place became relatively quiet at talk.
The 1920+ criterion is not arbitrary. It is referenced to prolific Britannica and cult-encyclopedist (and UCSB instructor) Dr. J. Gordon Melton's court testimony about the 1920's-30's onward creation of new homonyms of c-u-l-t, which obscured the original positive cult-of-veneration (cultus) meaning.
It is not possible to NPOV-ly list ancient cults of veneration in the same list as post-1920 kinds of cults that were previously unnamed. The NPOV and academic solution to this problem (which has been previously suggested), is to divide this article into pre- and post 1920 cult-reference list articles, with post-1920 further divided into a new Cult following list article containing fan-cults of popular culture.
During the quiet year, the centrist editors departed thinking the NPOV job was done, while the POV editors moved in to undo their NPOV work. Having tried and failed five times to delete this article, the current anti-reporters' strategy is to flood this article with up to 15,000 fan-cults by removing current criterion 4 ("...personality cult (heads of state), fan-cult of popular culture...") – in order to obscure the groups presently listed, which have been criticized for cultic abuses by governments and/or the global public. That's what the smokescreen of "Version B" is really about – is that what you want? Milo 10:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ...

[edit] Long comments

[edit] Criterion 4 exclusion of personality cults

(Note: May 1, 2008 "Criteria for inclusion" as referred-to below.)
Inclusion is based on a single reference by a reliable source that refers to the group:
1. as a "cult" directly in North American English, a "sect" in British English or any equivalent foreign-language word;
2. as a group (organizations and sets of individual practitioners, including those named by their technical practice of cults, qualify as groups);
3. as such within the last 50 years;
4. as not qualifying as a personality cult (heads of state), fan-cult of popular culture, or a group that doesn't have an actual following (fictional or self-nominated groups).
(Note: This long comment debate was moved from under
#Request for comments#Comments by involved editors - 14:31, 2 May 2008)

(Copy of RfC preference above:) * Version B. In Version A, criteria 1 & 2 are superfluous to the title, and criteria 3 & 4 are arbitrary. In particular, there is no logical or coherent reason why references before 2 May 1958 should not qualify (and the cutoff date changes every day). The exclusion of 'personality cults' is also similarly arbitrary because most groups on the list are personality cults anyway: Manson family, Jim Jones, etc. etc. -- Really Spooky 14:31, 2 May 2008

Comment I suggest that you strike the third sentence. While "personality cult" might be applied by analogy to infamous destructive cult leaders, that's not the formal definition of Cult of personality, a term applying to the media-hyped hero worship of political leaders, attributed to Karl Marx.
The sliding 50 year rule dates to before my time here. I support it as logically providing an NPOV due-weight measure of fairness for progressively sunsetting the oldest cult-reports about listed groups. Most groups referred to as cults markedly decline in being so referred to, after the first generation of group leaders (and their opponents) have died or retired, and the group either disbands or gains a harmless public reputation. One of the best known examples of this is Christian Science. While still notorious in the early 20th century, by a few years ago there was only one reliable source that was posted here. Milo 21:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Personality cults are still a subtype of cult, and as you correctly acknowledge, they overlap with other subtypes. So the fact that the term ‘personality cult’ has a more narrowly definition than ‘cult’ is no reason to exclude such groups from this page.
As for the ‘sliding 50-year rule’, I agree with you that as time goes by groups are less likely to be referred to as cults, usually because they become more mainstream or public fear and ignorance about them abates. But that is no reason to exclude earlier references. This is a list of groups referred to as cults, not a list of cults. It is supposed to be neutral about whether a group is actually a cult or not.
In sum, both criteria 3 & 4 are arbitrary, because they exclude groups referred to as cults from a ‘List of groups referred to as cults’ for no coherent reason other than the desire of certain editors to keep particular groups out. -- Really Spooky (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The "sliding 50" rule came, in part, because the meaning of "cult" used here did not really exist in the nineteenth century or earlier. I think originally it was a more specific "nothing before 1920" rule. For example in most of history "cult" meant more like "cultus" or any set of devotions. Some groups were seen as having a harmful or unhealthy "cultus", it's true, but this did not mean the word had developed a separate meaning for that phenomenon. What this means is that counting "The cult of Osiris and Isis", though technically valid, is largely illogical and anachronistic. It's using a modern meaning for something ancient. It's like putting Benito Mussolini in Roman dictators, if in reverse.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, then it got (accidentally?) flipped into covering a related but important hidden issue: years since the date of the source citation. See #Linked history of the sliding 50 year rule criterion (diff of the original post before re-editing my editorial-decision research into a subsection). Milo 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You did not address my first point, in which I was not discussing your position re: Spooky (14:31): "most groups on the list are personality cults anyway". This third sentence is factually wrong. There are no cults of personality (or the equivalent "personality cults") on the LOGRTAC list, as that would be a violation of Criterion 4 ("heads of state"). "Manson family, Jim Jones, etc." may be like personality cults, but that's an analogy, not a definition. Only definitions matter in the rulecrafting of formal criteria.
Spooky (16:09): "as time goes by groups are less likely to be referred to as cults" .... "is no reason to exclude earlier references" Why not? NPOV requires several forms of neutrality. The ‘sliding 50-year rule’ provides an "undue weight" balance, since a long list of very old grievance references makes a reformed group look worse than they presently are.
For example, I met Christian Scientists who, aside from not going to doctors and questioning the scientific theory of medicine, were average people. Only later did I become shocked by finding dusty library books filled with lengthy factual accounts of CS/Mary Baker Eddy's peccadilloes and heated public feuds with her contemporaries. Yet by the time I read those books, they didn't carry much weight. After some decades, the class of intellectuals who feuded with her, eventually forgave her because of her founding of the Christian Science Monitor, one of the world's better newspapers that covers underreported international news. Milo 03:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You did not address my first point, which was that personality cults are a subtype of cult. My statement is not factually wrong. The narrow Wikipedia definition of ‘cult of personality’ that you are using is unsourced original research. In dictionaries the term is used more widely to describe intense devotion to a particular person or public figure [15][16][17][18][19]. I think you would have to agree that most of the groups on this list meet that definition; indeed many ‘anti-cult’ activists claim that slavish devotion to a spiritual leader is one of the defining characteristics of a ‘cult’.
Since a common definition of a cult is ‘great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work’[20], a cult of personality is obviously a subtype of cult. So I see no logical reason whatsoever to arbitrarily exclude such groups, because personality cults are groups referred to as cults, which is what this list is about.
When I pointed out there is no good reason to exclude references made more than 50 years ago, you ask ‘Why not?’. I’m afraid those who concocted the rule will have to explain themselves. But your response only serves to highlight why it is such a bad rule. You claim it is NPOV because inclusion of an old reference makes a group look ‘worse than it really is’. Apart from the fact that readers are capable of thinking for themselves, I must remind you that once again this is a list of groups referred to as cults, not a list of cults. Your comments only show once again that the arbitrary rule is being used to marginalise certain groups. A truly NPOV list would include historical references as well, even if the group not longer existed or no-one called it a cult anymore. It would also be more informative and encyclopaedic and make for a much more interesting article. -- Really Spooky (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Spooky (14:02): "The narrow Wikipedia definition of 'cult of personality' that you are using is unsourced original research."
Cult of personality is a short ~9k article and has ~85k of vigorous debate going back to 2003. With 12 references, it's certainly not unsourced, though some sources are still missing despite the vigorous 5-year debate at the Talk:Cult of personality page.
Editors there have considered and dismissed the view that you hold of a celebrity cult of personality. Certainly, other people do think this, but essentially it is an academically-confusing neologism identical with a fan-cult (Cult following). Under no circumstances is it a primary meaning for the long-established term, and any dictionary that claims otherwise is academically unacceptable. Wiktionary has it almost correctly defined, though somewhat inelegantly: "A situation where a leader (often a dictator) has been falsely idolized and made into a national or group icon and is revered as a result."[21]
Spooky (14:02): "In dictionaries the term is used more widely to describe intense devotion to a particular person or public figure [15][16][17][18][19]."
Dictionaries [15][17][18][19] are not reliable sources.
[16] Random House, is reputable and has a preformatted-citable, reliable-source definition as follows:
cult of personality
–noun
a cult promoting adulation of a living national leader or public figure, as one encouraged by Stalin to extend his power.
[Origin: ‡ 1965–70; trans. of Russ kul’t líchnosti]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult%20of%20personality (accessed: May 05, 2008).
However, note that Random House's origin date is incorrect, it correctly being either the unstated date on Marx's critique letter to German political worker, Wilhelm Bloss, presumably in German, or Khrushchev's 1956 "Secret Speech" (On the Personality Cult and its Consequences)], in Russian, which speech made Marx's "cult of individual/personality" world-famous, with Stalin as the conceptual standard.
Also note that the romanized Russian word "líchnosti" does not work in either Google or AltaVista Babelfish translators. Several translations of the Cyrillic word to English are shown here. "личность" can translate to either "personality" or "individual", and both translations are used in the WP article Cult of personality. Milo 09:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. I will repeat once again, the narrow Wikipedia definition of ‘cult of personality’ to which you refer is unsourced original research. You respond to this by saying the article has 12 references. You know perfectly well that is a different matter. The definition remains unsourced.
  2. Your claim that four of the other dictionaries I refer to are ‘not reliable sources’ is nothing more than a bare assertion unsupported by any facts or reasoning. Anyhow, the Wiktionary and Random House definitions you refer to support my point.
  3. I am happy to see that you acknowledge that the Russian origin of the word is significant, because ‘культ личности’ literally means ‘worship of the individual’, and is defined by Russian dictionaries as ‘слепое преклонение перед авторитетом какого-либо деятеля, возвеличение роли одного человека, наделение его сверхъестественными качествами, приписывание ему определяющего влияния на общественное развитие’ (Yatsenko Dictionary of Social Terminology, 1999 [22]), i.e. ‘a blind reverence for the authority of some figure, the exaltation of the role of a particular person, conferring upon him supernatural qualities and attributing to him definitive influence on social development’. In other words, it fits most of the groups on our list.
  4. None of what you have written refutes my main point, which is that personality cults are a subtype of cult, so they belong in the list. -- Really Spooky (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Spooky (13:54): "claim that four of the other dictionaries I refer to are 'not reliable sources'"
As reliable sources, the other four lack the staff necessary for fact-checking. For making non-reliable-sourced editorial selection judgments, they are also academically unacceptable as I noted in Milo (09:19), since they fail to mention the accepted academic definition of "cult of personality" (i.e., heads of state modeled on Stalin).
Spooky (13:54): "Wikitionary"
Wikitionary has a similar set of problems. Last I heard, it is not permitted to be used as a reliable source for Wikipedia. For editorial judgment use, it is academically unacceptable due to leaving out 'living national' prior to "leader".
Spooky (13:54): "Yatsenko Dictionary of Social Terminology" (Note: I find that should be translated as "Sociological").
I commend you for locating such an English-obscure dictionary, but unfortunately it suffers the similar two problems as the other five dictionaries. While there are many references to it in Russian, only one English language abstract mentions it.[23] N.E. Yatsenko is unknown in the west, and his book's status as a reliable source for English Wikipedia is unverifiable. For editorial judgment use, his definition of "культ личности" in the translation you provided is also academically unacceptable in the West. ("kul5t-li4nosti" is the quasi-romanized URL filename for Yatsenko's phrase. Note the final Cyrillic letter in the second word is different from "личность" linked in my post to Google Translate.) Western academe has often been at odds with Soviet (and perhaps post-Soviet Russian) academic publications, which were reputationally damaged by decades of official Lysenkoisms, censorship, and unethical historic revisionism. Khrushchev's 1956 "Secret Speech" (On the Personality Cult and its Consequences) was not officially published in Soviet Russia until 1989. Combine that with the recent popular rehabilitation of Stalin, and thus Russian perception of "kul5t-li4nosti" may well be and remain, different than that of Western academe.
Spooky (13:54): "I will repeat once again, the narrow Wikipedia definition of 'cult of personality' to which you refer is unsourced original research. You respond to this by saying the article has 12 references. ...that is a different matter. The definition remains unsourced."
You seem to be saying that the article Cult of personality, with its Western academic definition of the title term, apparently based on 12 reliable source references, is (somehow) unsourced original research (and therefore must be AfD'd?). If that's what you are saying, it seems like a wild charge.
But whatever, I'm uncertain as to why you keep repeating something that doesn't matter. It's moot since we agree on the Random house definition of "cult of personality", which we had each selected for posting before either of us knew the other's choices.
Spooky (13:54): "None of what you have written refutes my main point, ..."
By which you must mean that you don't accept my refutation of it in Three positions countered, #2 (Milo 10:53, 2 May 2008).
Spooky (13:54): "... which is that personality cults are a subtype of cult, so they belong in the list."
To specifically refute this version of your main point, "subtype" is not a sufficient reason for co-listing all examples of the 8-some c-u-l-t homonyms or polysemes. Personality cults may be a subtype of cult when speaking in some loose context such as the pulpit (e.g., 'Every type of cult distracts from attention to the Biblical God,' —by which he made clear his opposition to new religions and Kim Jong-il, as well as the reading of fan magazines.). But using a similarly loose context, certain diagrams are also a subtype of tree. I'll go out on a limb here and state that no serious editor thinks that examples of tree diagrams should be included in List of trees. Milo 08:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of cults, referred to as cults, destructive cults

I agree. Just note that List of cults redirects here, so the intentions of this article are quite clear. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
jossi (17:54): "List of cults redirects here, so the intentions of this article are quite clear."
A false implication. First, readers search for their POVs, so redirects are an instant corrective educational tool. Second, the search phrase List of cults is partially correct because (a) cults exist by scientific sociology definition, and (b) Wikipedia has consensed that the category of destructive cults, inclusively listed here, not only are referred to as cults, but are cults in fact. Two RfDs at Talk:List of cults further make it clear that other editors do not agree with you and Spooky (who made an uninformed attempt to delete the redirect).
It's also a foolish PR position that makes both of you look bad.
I'm sympathetic to the little-known thousands of NRM groups who get along with their neighbors, think progressively better of groups who provide restitution after confessing their abusive sins, and am somewhat tolerant of groups' annoyances like legally-infractious mass begging, or SCOTUS-approved doorstep proselytization — but — to claim or imply that there are no NPOV-listable populist (or sociological) cults at all, unacceptably dishonors the thousand-some well-known death victims of global cults.
I could say a lot more about this, so you would be wise to drop List of cults redirect as an issue and move on. Milo 03:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Milo: “Wikipedia has consensed that the category of destructive cults, inclusively listed here, not only are referred to as cults, but are cults in fact.” That is pure bollocks, and you know it. This article clearly states that: “Inclusion in the media list does not prove, in any manner, that a group functions as a "cult" or as a "sect", and all definitions of those words not excluded by the header inclusion criteria, are accepted. Media listings are almost exclusively references to opinions. Opinions are not facts.” There is no ‘destructive cults’ category on Wikipedia, whether listed here or elsewhere. -- Really Spooky (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Spooky (14:24): "This article clearly states that: "Inclusion in the media list does not prove, in any manner, that a group functions as a "cult"". Ok, then I propose to update that sentence with, 'except for mass suicide and murder groups' .
Spooky (14:24): "There is no 'destructive cults' category on Wikipedia..." That formal category was indeed deleted (here, June 2007), possibly because all proponents overlooked it. However, the Category:Cult suicides lists four groups as cults which are also listed at LOGRTAC, and as well, the Destructive cult article lists a number of specific groups as destructive cults, including three listed at Category:Cult suicides, and at least seven of which are also listed here at LOGRTAC.
About four months after the unnoticed deletion of Category:Destructive cults (implausibly lacking any keep votes), Category:Cult suicides had survived twice. During the second Category:Cult suicides CfD (here, September 2007), there were ringing endorsements for Wikipedia to consense that the word "cult" is contextually acceptable to use at Wikipedia, and that certain specific groups are in fact, cults ("...cases where the group has earned and largely caused the negative connotations of the word, and is uncontroversially regarded as a cult among reliable sources." --Lonewolf BC (16:20, 21 Sep 2007)).
Furthermore, this second CfD marked the watershed toward exhaustion of community patience with Sfacets, including "...Sfacets's ongoing campaign to expunge the word "cult" from Wikipedia..." (-- Lonewolf BC (17:27, 20 September 2007)). Among too many other problems, Sfacets was notorious for unencyclopedically denying established facts, and tendentiously refusing to take firmly logical points during debate. Sfacets was banned from Wikipedia on January 4, 2008.
Spooky (14:24): "That is pure bollocks, and you know it." If I knew it was pure nonsense, I wouldn't have written it. Hm. I think you're two steps over the line there, so I suggest that you strike that remark. Milo 09:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] This is how stupidity grows

↑<--- What the heck is 'stupidy'? [ 208.72.127.164 20:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC) [24] ]

This is one of the problems with this type of article and with such lousy definitions. Let's look at this wonderful term "academic". Here is a list of definitions:

1. of or pertaining to a college, academy, school, or other educational institution, esp. one for higher education: academic requirements.
2. pertaining to areas of study that are not primarily vocational or applied, as the humanities or pure mathematics.
3. theoretical or hypothetical; not practical, realistic, or directly useful: an academic question; an academic discussion of a matter already decided.
4. learned or scholarly but lacking in worldliness, common sense, or practicality.
5. conforming to set rules, standards, or traditions; conventional: academic painting.
6. acquired by formal education, esp. at a college or university: academic preparation for the ministry.
7. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to Academe or to the Platonic school of philosophy.

–noun 8. a student or teacher at a college or university.

9. a person who is academic in background, attitudes, methods, etc.: He was by temperament an academic, concerned with books and the arts.
10. (initial capital letter) a person who supports or advocates the Platonic school of philosophy.
11. academics, the scholarly activities of a school or university, as classroom studies or research projects: more emphasis on academics and less on athletics.

Now let's look at one of those groups, in this case Mormonism, that is identified as a cult with three references, which are as follows:

28 Scott, Walt, The Mystery And Controversy Surrounding "Mormonism" (2007). Dog Ear Publishing, ISBN 1-5985-8500-2

29 Bartely, Peter Mormonism: The Prophet, the Book and the Cult, (1989) ISBN 1-8539-0063-X

30 Mow, Richard, J., Beckwith, Francis, Mosser, Carl, and Owen, Pul (Eds.) New Mormon Challenge (2002), Zondervan, ISBN 03-1023-194-9

First, Walt Scott is not an academic, but a member of the LDS church who has repeated the statements of other Christian churches about Mormonism being a cult. This is not a reference that supports the proposition. This should be deleted. His publication is neither academic or representative of a book that we think of as a peer reviewed, scholarly work. It is more akin to apologetics.

Second, Peter Bartely, is simply not able to be found. Ignatius Press, a Catholic printing company, has reprinted the book first published by Veritas Publications of Ireland, which is another Catholic printing house. I could not find anything about the author, but the mere fact that his book is being printed by two Catholic printing houses leads me to believe that we do not have a peer reviewed, objective publication, but rather a polemic exposé. This is also not an academic book, but something else entirely.

Third, Richard Mouw's (not Mow) book is not an academic investigation of a religion, it is written by Christian scholars who are seeking to "protect" the flock by those investigating Mormonism. Their book states, "Intellectually serious evangelical responses to the faith of the Latter-day Saints have been depressingly rare. This book represents a significant contribution to a conversation that, really, has just begun." This is another polemic investigation.

There is no attempt in any of these references to investigate a religion, but rather a subjective response to how Christians can be protected from the boogie man knocking at their door.

With the type of definitions now proposed, I can provide sources for listing the Roman Catholic church,[25][26][27][28] all of the Orthodox chruches,[29][30][31] and a number of other significant churches as cults. These are just but a few web sites, but I suspect I can dig up some references that would be at least as good as the ones used above.

Media??? used as a reference? We can find everything in the media to support the most outlandish things possible. This simply will make this list of no value because every thing will be listed, you name the church and we can find some idiot quoted in the media. What is the significance of the list...that the world is full of idiots that will say anything when it comes to religion? As the Cult article states, these are terms often used by one religion to denigrate another. Christian religions have been notorious for its use about any group that disagrees with "their's". In fact, Christianity was called a cult for the first 300 years.

If you are determined to make this list, okay. But you are going to have to be far more inclusive and start listing every bloody church that has ever been called a cult. One does not get to pick and choose. Create definitions that stop all the nonsense and silliness like the references used above or open the spigot and list everyone. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your issue was successfully WP:Avoided for over a year, and it's easy to re-avoid. Support a return of the 1920+ criterion: "Groups referenced must not have been named by reliable sources to independently exist prior to 1920 in their substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices." If you support a successful consensus to re-add it to the criteria, all scientific and media listings of the original 19th century Latter Day Saints organization will again disappear from this article. Milo 11:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, So anyone can come here and "invent" a new criteria so that their "group" is removed from this list? Very convenient, indeed, and and example of why this arbitrary criteria, which is a WP:NOR violation is not a good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a strawman post. The formerly consensed 1920+ rule is multiply P&S sourced, including sworn courtroom cult-expert testimony by UCSB instructor, prolific Britannica contributor, and cult encyclopedist Dr. J. Gordon Melton (see "Three J. Gordon Melton references backing consensus for Inclusion criteria #4" - 05:03, 24 Aug 2007, bottom post). Milo 04:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the significance of the list...that the world is full of idiots that will say anything when it comes to religion? As the Cult article states, these are terms often used by one religion to denigrate another. Christian religions have been notorious for its use about any group that disagrees with "their's". In fact, Christianity was called a cult for the first 300 years. Agree. That is the argument that many of us have raised over the years, and it has been dismissed under the argument of WP:RS. IMO, that is a narrow and misleading interpretation of policy as it removes the basics of good editorial judgment from the equation and ignores aspects for WP:UNDUE, NPOV, and NOR≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Christianity was called a cult for the first 300 years[citation needed] Contemporanously (33-333 C.E.) in Latin? I can't find a source for it on WP, and I question whether this statement rests on yet another undisambiguated conflation of c-u-l-t homonyms.
Perhaps it rests on a literal translation of Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117) (see Early_Christianity#Persecution), but I think he would have used the word "cultus". The difference may be that there was nothing specifically pejoritive about being called a "cultus" circa 100 C.E. If so, editors and readers should become informed of that. Milo 04:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, reputable sources policy would not negate that Christianity was a called a cult, that Catholicism is viewed as a cult by other church groups, or that Orthodoxy is viewed as a cult by other church groups. The problem is the definition being used and the fact that you have left the barndoor wide open. You did not respond to any of the valid claims that current "academic" references are anything but academic, they are polemic writers and have nothing to do with scholarly, objective research.
I find it interesting that you would say that some groups can just come in a create a definition to remove themselves; the issue is not removing a group, the issue is maintaining a defintion that is recognized and acknowledged by objective scholars what a cult is. You would think this article would necessarily be guided by the actual article on Cults. The direction you are taking seems to take us in the direction of, Old Joe said it so it must be a cult. Are Catholicism a cult? How about the Russian Orthodox church? Why not? How long does a church have to exist before it is not a cult? Why? In your proposal what we would have is really a list of what one church groups thinks of other church groups? Unfortunately, this is the promulgation of stupidity, innuendo, polemics. Still possible, but I will make sure that every group ever identified as a cult gets listed and not just the usual suspects that have been targed. We will end up with a list, but it will not be the one that exits today. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I will make sure that every group ever identified as a cult gets listed and not just the usual suspects that have been targed. Agree, I will lend you a hand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, same question as the last time this came up: What is your multi-page organization plan for listing up to perhaps 15,000 fan-cults (Cult following)? Are you going to object to putting them into a separate fan-cult section? Milo 04:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Refactor your personal attack above, and I may be inclined to consider engaging with you in discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's happening to agreement on two media sources?

Have you guys at least gotten somewhere on removing those with only one source? I thought there was general agreement that there should be two or more sources?--T. Anthony (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An RFC is happening: Version B's jam-agenda revealed

The RFC above takes precedence. Take a look at jossi's proposed "Version B" (Compared to the present Version A):

  • Version B goes back to a single media reference. Why? It's more unfair, so more complaints will help jam the talk page.
  • It allows fan-cults, head-of-state cults, fictional cults, and joke cults. Why? It jams the list with up to 15,000 Googled references to fan-cults. Few will be able to find the abusive or excessive-member-control groups that global citizens worry about.
  • It allows references more than 50 years old. Why? So no reformed group like ISKON can ever outlive their bad publicity years, leading to more complaints to jam the talk page.
  • The cautious definitions notice of what an academic cult is are deleted from the academic header. Why? To increase homonymic conflict, so newbs will remain uninformed about the vast distinction between the different meanings of c-u-l-t words spelled the same way, leading to more complaints to jam the talk page.
  • The NPOV and reliable source notice carefully crafted over the years has been pushed into a footnote where the newbs won't see it. Why? So more newbs will ask unnecessary NPOV-POV questions to wear out the editors, and yet more newbs will post unreliable sources to waste editors' time in removing them.
In short, Version B's purpose is to unbalance the article in unobvious ways that will make it dysfunctional. Having filled it with cruft and provoked unfairness, then he or others can AfD it yet again saying 'look it's full of cruft, and there are many complaints about it on the talk page'.
In addition, you've been an occasional editor here since Aug 2005, longer than I have, and done good work on this article. You know jossi, to whom you responded to on 20:50, 15 June 2006 in Archive 7, after he said "We either include all groups or none. Including some and excluding others violates WP:NOR." This statement never made much sense, since Wikipedia is also not a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, selection is something that editors do, and selection is included in "source-based research" – which is specifically stated as not being WP:NOR. But at last there is an answer as to why jossi has pursued this illogical WP:NOR position for years.
If a list is selective, editors naturally select the most interesting and newsworthy entries. At LOGRTAC, that means passing editors usually select and add the most newsworthy of about 200-some cults among the 3 to 5 thousand estimated to exist in the U.S. alone (see Cult). The guru Prem Rawat is positively newsworthy, having appeared several times on U.S. public television in recent years, and was closely related to the Elan Vital group that was most negatively newsworthy in the 1980's.
Elan Vital is on the LOGRTAC list. Jossi is, on balance, the all-time number one opponent of the List of groups referred to as cults. For a long time, I didn't know there was a connection, and that jossi had and has good reason to try to get LOGRTAC AfD'd or dysfunctional. It's way too close to being his job.
If you are not aware, The Register ran an expose of jossi titled, "Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe': When is a cult not a cult?" - 2008-02-06. Jossi is an employee of the Prem Rawat organizations, who have been referred to as a cult. While he is not directly paid to edit Wikipedia, Prem Rawat allows him a lot of time to do just that. Maybe Rawat never said 'keep me looking good at Wikipedia', or never said 'keep my organizations out of the List of groups referred to as cults', but since jossi is a premie group member paid by Rawat, he is powerfully WP:COI motivated to do just that without being asked. See my post WP:COI-influenced guideline? above for an account of how the Prem Rawat Arbcom case relates to LOGRTAC in more specific detail.
Jossi said, "We either include all groups or none."
Of course. First all. Then none. Milo 09:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I would ask you for the last time to stop with these arguments. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat. Any further use of these arguments will be reported to WP:AN/I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Arguments of debate and discussion are mandatory under the Wikipedia concensus process. By "these" arguments, I assume that you mean particular arguments, to which you object on grounds of guiderules or policy.
No one can be expected to meaningfully respond to such a vague demand. You must create a bill of particulars, showing which guiderules or policies are being violated by linequote of them juxtaposed with the offending arguments. Milo 09:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Lots to digest there, I might need some time. I have a good memory, but remembering exactly what I said or felt two years ago is not necessarily easy. (I looked it up in the Archive though so I think I remember now) As I recall though I ended up finding dealing with the factions, including mine if I had one, exhausting and I think at the last AfD I favored deletion.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, could you reassure Milo that you do not have an intention of seeing this article deleted? Because of your strong opposition to this article's existence in the past, I can see why proposals may be met with skepticism. While pointing out a COI may be a bit unpleasant it can't be ignored either. This article has been very stable. Loosening the criteria would not be an improvement and Milo is rightly concerned that relaxing them would worsen the article rather than improve it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no excuse for User:Milomedes ad hominem, and I take exception on your assessment of my intentions. This article has been featuring dispute tags for months, and no one is willing to resolve these issues. I made proposals that where sound,; others made proposals as well, which were dismissed in an obvious case of WP:OWN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think these matters should have been dealt with in a gentler fashion. I think people should avoid mean behavior or at least retract it. I also agree this list is unresolvable and should've been deleted. Still I do think "these matters" exist and might be worthy of tactful discussion. Meaning I do think there are reasonable concerns about your involvement in this list. You've advocated deletion from the beginning and promoted variant ideas on it. Ideally I think you should maybe recuse yourself, as should a few others, for the sake of progress. If progress can still not be done after that, which I think is probable, then we should deleted. But of course this is a call to be made by you and other editors.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Jossi (05:29): "your assessment of my intentions"
Will did not assess your intentions. He requested that you declare them.
I was the one who assessed your intentions, based on the public evidence, combined with your previous actions.
Jossi (05:29): "no excuse for User:Milomedes ad hominem"
It is indeed an ad hominem, in the sense of meaning an argument to the man. You are that man, and your WP:COI behavior and agenda are under discussion. However, "no excuse for" is a bromide dismissive of a justified cause. The cause here is justified by your established conflict of interest in the editing of Prem Rawat-related articles, and that does include List of groups referred to as cults
Jossi (05:29): "I made proposals that w[]ere sound"
Your historic support for the current name of this group is admirable.
Jossi (05:29): "dismissed in an obvious case of WP:OWN."
Consensus decisions here are often not based on centrist logic, which also gives me the impression of WP:OWN. I think all of the regular editors have had winning and losing streaks. Given that historically no group wants to be listed here, I once stated my opinion that the best obtainable fairness at LOGRTAC was if everyone feels treated equally unfairly. That may also apply to talk page editors. As T. Anthony (09:50) said above, "...dealing with the factions, including mine if I had one, exhausting...".
I've initially responded to your complaints made via Will Beback's talk page. There I've offered to go through your complaints line-by-line, rule-by-rule, and try to determine whether either you or I misunderstand the current guiderules or policies that apply. If you can't or don't want to do that, then the debate here will proceed in its current form. Milo 09:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Try not to make things too heated. Also, in case it's unclear, I was not stating that Jossi alone was my problem back when.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I too was thinking of many factions.
Would you make an official entry into the RFC section? Milo 10:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Done, although I doubt it did much good.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it's helpful that you expressed any type of centrist view.
Embroidering on the embroiderer Fritjof Capra, there is a philosophical quantum region between all controversial polar opposites, out of which new centrist concepts can emerge from the void. Skeptics shrug, 'Oh, you mean that people can have moderate ideas.' Milo 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists like these are evil

I just noticed a listing of this on the religion RfC list, in reference to the two versions suggested above. I think both versions are in horrible shape, but Jossi's is definitely unworkable since it leaves the field much too open. The current version isn't much better however as evidenced by some of rather absurd inclusions. The criteria states "as such within the last 50 years." Since the entry lists "Norse cults of Ingvi-freyr and Borr [29]" I can only imagine that this has naught to do with the historicity of the group and its status vis-a-vis some definition of cult but only to do with the making of claim itself. What exactly is the utility of that other than the pretense of academic consistency in the applied meaning of the term? I also note that Wahhabism is listed under "academic sources" with reference only coming from two non-academics. What purpose does the "academic sources" section serve here? It could be expanded much much further to no purpose at all. I highly doubt that there is much relevant comparison, sociologically, between Protestantism, the Norse cult of Borr, and Heaven's Gate. Is the fact that Protestantism has become so "mainstream" since its origin supposed to make us believe that the International Raelian Movement might also if given enough time? This list conflates different uses of the term "cult" in ways that only confuses those seeking information. I can see the utility of the second part of the list, but it suffers from a more obvious cultural politics. Its like having a list of people referred to as "Fascist" or a List of events named massacre for that matter. A very strict set of definitional guidelines would have be imposed (much more so than currently is available), and even then it would be a constant target of both the malevolent aims of anti-cult groups, and the apologist aims of cult members. I would be much more so in favor of a list of "destructive cults" or something of that nature, but I note from what I've seen in the discussions at the afore mentioned list of (events called) massacre that having a list that doesn't explicitly only purport to list things "called or named" X, Y or Z just wont make the cut around here, yet listing things "called or named" X, Y or Z is just playing at cultural politics, and unless we're trying to inform people of these politics we're just confusing them more. This is why these types of lists are simple evil (to use a strong phrase) and should all be gone. That's my unhelpful comment.PelleSmith (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Evil" is an overly loaded word, but I agree that Versions A and B were both bad. The list should either not exist or be done much stricter than now. If it is to exist I think it should require multiple sources for each entry and be based in the specific 20th c. meaning of "cult." For a long time now the list has essentially been a point-making attempt to say "everything has been referred to as a cult so cult allegations are meaningless." Even if that point is valid it renders the list meaningless or turns it into advocacy.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see how this entry can ever achieve any thing like NPOV. By its very definition it chooses to represent only one point of view, that is "Group X is a cult" and ignore the opposing one ("Group X is not cult"). So how can NPOV ever arise from that? John Campbell (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You clearly misunderstand NPOV. If the weight of evidence says a group is a cult then it is, POV comes from the author of the article, not the references, I suggest you re-read WP:POV. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that fairly summarises WP:NPOV which is the gold standard. In any case, looking for the "weight of evidence" sounds like WP:OR. Different points of view (if any) ought to be presented, as set out in WP:YESPOV. The article as it stands doesn't even deal with the weight of evidence, but with a single affirmative reference, with no regard for alternative points of view. John Campbell (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(E/C) How is this list different from other lists? Compare to List of Jewish historians - what if someone thinks an entry doesn't belong there? Well, same as here- first check the sources to make sure the initial claim is substantial, then provide counterclaims. If editors would like to add rebuttals to this list then I'm sure they can be accomodated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Because "Cult" is generally seen as a negative or ambiguous word in a way that "Jewish historian" is not. For example see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people widely considered eccentric. This is also referred to whether something, or in this case someone, has been referred to as something. It died.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
And because "cult" is specifically mentioned in WP:WTA John Campbell (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
First, many editors consider "Jew" to be a negative term and seek to apply it liberally. That's why related lists have had to require stringent sourcing. As for John's point, WTA does not prohibit words, it just recommends that care be used. Since the topic is "cults" no other word will do. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

<<PelleSmith, John Campbell, T. Anthony, and Mamalujo below, all make good points, which at one point ot another in the life of this list have been raised by many others. The fact is that this list has had a perennial set of dispute tags based on simliar arguments presented above. What is the solution? I don't really know, as the politics are too intense to afford a political-less discussion at AfD, or to make any good faith attempts to make this list useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for deletion suggested

I think it's time someone put this article up for deletion (again). It is, quite frankly, one of the worst articles I've seen (including many of the other inane lists out there). The post above says lists like this are evil; I don't know about evil, but I think imbecilic is an apt word. It is shocking and a testament to the flaws of Wikipedia that this awful article has survived multiple nominations. It is loaded with SYN, OR, and POV. It conflates the many different meanings of the word "cult" in the academic section and the media section is just meaningless. The multiple nominations show it's incapable of being fixed. Still, with a well framed nomination, I suspect it will persish as it deserves to.Mamalujo (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that civil and human rights are important? I think that you do, and so do I. After my specific responses, I'll try to explain their connection to List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC), mostly in the subsequent post.
Mamalujo (17:39):"testament to the flaws of Wikipedia that this awful article has survived multiple nominations."
It used to be better, because controversial articles are edited in circles. Why don't you help restore it to the way it was?
Mamalujo (17:39):"inane"
I'm aware of no objective evidence to support use of "inane" as defined, and much to the contrary. 12 archives filled with debate to shape this list is obviously not insubstantial, nor does it lack for significance, meaning or point.
Mamalujo (17:39): "imbecilic"
On balance, not an apt word as "imbecilic" is defined. The 12 archives are filled with much closely-reasoned debate by many well-educated editors, but perhaps a few who aren't.
Mamalujo (17:39): "It is loaded with SYN, OR, and POV"
I think I've debated all these concepts as applied to LOGRTAC, and certainly the first two fail one test of logic or another.
The problem with POV is that some group members have complained about POV, while working to make POV worse. I think that was done to strategically increase the possibility of a successful AfD, by deliberately causing POV complaints. A now banned POV group member was the tendentious lead in removing the well-referenced 1920+ criterion, old religions were then re-added, and no surprise, here you are suggesting an AfD. How about helping to repair their damage instead of being their POV-complaint tool?
Mamalujo (17:39): "it's incapable of being fixed"
How do you know that? How much have you studied the issues?
It also depends on what you mean by "fixed".
If you mean that it would be fixed, if all old religions (including Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islam) were off the list (because c-u-l-t used for pre-1920 groups (cultus) has only the positive connotation of religious veneration), then it was fixed for over a year (Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007). The sociologically referenced criterion (see Milo 04:00, 26 August 2007) that provided this feature was the 1920+ rule: "Groups referenced must not have been named by reliable sources to independently exist prior to 1920 in their substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices." The defined negative meanings of c-u-l-t didn't exist before that time, so cultus groups shouldn't be on this list, and the 1920+ criterion excluded them. Help to restore it and LOGRTAC will be a lot more fixed, as it used to be. (Note that what is possibly your group would go back off the list with a restored 1920+ criterion.)
If by "fixed", you mean that groups on the list would somehow stop complaining that Wikipedia has referenced news reports where their groups committed crimes, got sued, annoyed their neighbors, or provoked strong emotions in their ex-members – that's not going to happen. Reporting unfavorable historic news is part of Wikipedia's mission, and it's an ethic to limit future attempts at Stalinist revisionism.
This list also happens to be an index of news references that global citizens are very interested in reading, for what they hope is the future protection of themselves and their families. (See the details in my post below.) Milo 11:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm no wiki lawyer, but who has make time to write this article? Sure, we want to collect all the world's knowledge, but who thought that this was where they would get the biggest benefit? I don't know if this article has a right to exist, but it is a big waste of everyone's time and frankly, offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.245.232 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Since almost no group feels that media should write stories criticizing them, some/many members of every listed group take offense at having those stories indexed here, so taking offense is routine, if not normal. NPOV is achieved when every group feels equally unfairly offended, just by being listed. (Note that what is possibly your group would go back off the list with a restored 1920+ criterion.)
199.46.245.232 (22:31): "who thought that this was where they would get the biggest benefit" .... "big waste of everyone's time"
Newbies to the subject often think things like that, or have other extreme views.
Many entries are made to LOGRTAC by passing IPs, which tend to be passionate, though often not reliably sourced. They clearly don't think it's a waste of their time. If one reads all the news stories linked from the article, one will at least learn the detailed issues that provoked confrontation with listed groups, and see the overall pattern of trouble that emerges from unchecked power of charismatic group leadership.
Being an index to case details in an overall-significant record of human-rights history, LOGRTAC-writing is not a waste of time.
The short version of that history is that global citizens and their governments were shocked by the thousand-some destructive cult deaths of ever-increasing horror between 1978 and 1994: Peoples Temple (900-person mass suicides and Congressman/media murders), OTRS (mind-controlled infant murder and mass suicides on two continents), and Aum Shinrikyo (subway nerve gas mass murders). French citizens took the lead to demand that cult-control legislation for human rights be enacted – not just to prevent suicide/murders, but also to stop abuses and economic exploitations too much like slavery.
Read Cult to get a reporter's understanding of how complicated is the cult situation.
Then, if you're really serious about understanding the issues, read how the French decided that they must form legal policies to reduce the risk of more destructive cults arising. Their mandate to reform legally-misbehaving cults, through watching and correction of smaller infractions before they become larger crimes, is found in the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France (a.k.a., the French Report - see this unofficial translation of the French Report). French cult control policies were quietly used as models by other governments (see Groups referred to as cults in government documents). There have been substantial problems with this model, but it remains a necessary work in progress. Milo 11:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible resolution of disputes and attempt to avoid deletion nomination

The problem with this article is summed up in this quote (which happens to be the last words on the entry for the term "cult" in a religious encyclopedia): "[T]he careless application of the cult concept by both the media and opponents of specific groups has made the social scientific use of the cult concept increasingly difficult." (Encyclopedia of Religion and Society p. 123) There are multiple definitions of the term cult, even within a single discipline, they are used carelessly, even in academic journals, and this makes the taxonomy difficult. The article says there are four uses of the term cult in sociology but that is not exactly accurate. There are more than that, even in that single discipline, and not all of them fit into that typology. The now common and colloquial understanding of the term "cult", and what readers of this encyclopedia are expecting when they read this list is what is found in the article destructive cult. In other words new religious movements, typically involving close control and psychological manipulation, which are dangerous or potentially dangerous for the adherents or society. I would propose criteria something along the following lines. We should have three reliable sources which fit this sort of definition and it should be from the last 50 years (otherwise the group may have since evolved out of its harmful nature). This may seem like a lot, but the term is highly offensive, is used carelessly, sometimes applying an inapt definition, and, if the group really is a destructive cult, it should not be hard to find three reliable sources that say so. I suspect the following sort of groups should meet the criteria: Aum Shinrikyo, Concerned Christians, The Family (Charles Manson), The Church Of The Lamb Of God, Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, Jeffrey Lundgren, Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God (Uganda), The People's Temple (Jim Jones), Solar Temple, Scientology, House of Yahweh, Crocodile Men From Congo, God's Salvation Church, Indonesian Witch Hunters, Jombola, Westboro Baptist Church, Yahweh Ben Yahweh & The Temple of Love, Tony Alamo, and World Church of the Creator. What we have now is a list that includes Buddhism, Mormonism, Judaism, Christianity, environmentalism, Freudianism and (got to love this one) Wikipedia. Thoughts? Mamalujo (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems a suitable approach ... which will be fought vigorously by some editors, as per the last comments made in the section above: the advocacy tone of that last comment, is what makes this list problematic, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the scholarly response, including your reference to Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. I wrote a similar second clause for the Cult article without having seen it, so this quote may be a suitable article reference.
There are quite a few issues that your proposal raises. I'm thinking that more editors could participate in the dialogue if I broke them up into separate posts.
Overall, you seem not yet up to speed on research (and I understand that your time is limited). You appear to have the intellectual skills to integrate the French Report into your thinking, and reading it will save a lot of time in understanding the big legal picture.
Your understanding of destructive cults is good enough for now, but they are less than 20, and Wikipedia's coverage of them is largely settled. OTOH, you don't seem to grasp the issues of (index list) reporting of cultic abuse and exploitation.
Despite the end-stage-drama of destructive cults, cultic abuse and exploitation groups are the largest part of the global problem (150-some groups, see the unofficial French Report translation). Under the French Report mandate, they are the groups to be watched and corrected with the goal of preventing them from becoming destructive, but your proposal does not seem to address listing them at all.
For a year or two now, I have advocated a legal status basis for sorting media references to c-u-l-t. Charged, convicted, sued, settled, fined, ordered, etc., plus "Other", creates clear, defined, verifiable, court-reporting categories that aren't expected to put repentant GCI in the same sublist with crazed murder cults. Adding "legal status sorting" to a restored 1920+ rule may be the next improvement in NPOV, since editors (including me) appear to have already consensed a two-media-reference listing criterion.
Newbies tend to make light of the Wikipedia listing – until they are persuaded to read it. Charles Arthur quoted dictionary definitions of "cult" in support of his opinion: ("Log on and join in, but beware the web cults" Few of the other media reports have been that clear about what they meant by writing or quoting c-u-l-t. Milo 23:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am not a newbie, but I think this article fails the basic intelligence test: "Does this add to human understanding?" It fails because it does not recognise that any group of people whose behaviour identifies them, will, if small enough, be labelled a "cult" by someone or other, who will probably be a member of an organisation that is equally bizarre, just bigger. When they themselves get bigger, they will not be so called, even if their behaviour is unchanged. I just watched a replay of the Australian Open. If there were only 20 ball players in the world and they all played tennis, how reviled would they be? As there are millions, they are admired. And it is not the job of an encyclopedia to make judgements on groups which might grow into something dangerous. Police do that. On the other hand, groups which have indulged in criminal behaviour need a stronger appellation than "cult." Rumiton (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Rumiton (11:20): "It fails because it does not recognise that any group of people whose behaviour identifies them, will, if small enough, be labelled a "cult""
It can't fail based on a misconception. Small size and identified behavior only, does not make a cult. Cults have a high degree of tension with, and nontraditional beliefs/behavior compared to the surrounding culture. I think this definition is attributable to Stark and Bainbridge. The public decides how much tension is high and what beliefs/behavior are nontraditional enough, as reflected in media reports usually focused on some sort of misbehavior.
For example, Koresh's small 100-some member Seven Seals biblical group got along well with their Waco neighbors, and was not populistically a cult until The Sinful Messiah was published in close proximity to the ATF raid.
Rumiton (11:20): "And it is not the job of an encyclopedia to make judgements on groups.... Police do that."
There are no judgments on groups in LOGRTAC. It's an index of cult-reference mainstream news reports for further research.
If that's your suggested reason for deletion, your position is indistinguishable from removing the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature from public libraries in order to prevent newspaper and magazine research on cults.
Can other people use LOGRTAC to research and read news articles, from which they may make judgments? Yes, they can. Can police use LOGRTAC to research and read news articles, from which they may make judgments? Yes, they can. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to stop them from making judgments because of reading news articles that the encyclopedia did not write.
Rumiton (11:20): "...make judgements on groups which might grow into something dangerous."
Perhaps you misunderstood my summary of the French Report. That mandate is not to make judgments on groups which might grow into something dangerous (probably not possible), but rather to closely enforce lesser laws and regulations on all groups that appear to be cults (high tension and nontraditional beliefs). The idea is that when cult leaders learn that they can't get away with lesser illegalities, they will not attempt to engage in serious crimes. This type of enforcement also addresses common cult complaints of abuse, as well as economic exploitations which violate labor laws.
Your edit summary reads: "11:20, 2 June 2008 Rumiton (Possible resolution of disputes and attempt to avoid deletion nomination: I suggest deletion.)"
Well, that seems off-topic to this section – I wonder why? (does search) User:John Brauns has identified you as a follower of Rawat. Assuming that's correct, your suggestion to delete this article is in WP:COI, since Rawat's organization Elan Vital is a listed group referred to as a cult. Milo 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of nations referred to as uncivilised?

Would it be appropriate to include a List of Nations referred to as Uncivilised in Wikipedia? I don't think so. It would be interesting but inappropriate. I'm not sure there's much difference between that and 'LOGRTAC'. Chee Chahko (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll acronymize your hypothetical "List of nations referred to as uncivilised" as "LNRU".
You didn't state why you think LNRU was inappropriate, so your position devolves to WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is an argument to avoid. However, the best counter-argument to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is utility.
How is LNRU useful?
- As a list of places to send missionaries?
- Places where the UN should suppress head-hunting?
- List details an existing article "Uncivilised nations"?
LNRU is apparently not useful.
How is LOGRTAC useful?
• It's an index useful for further research, and that is the purpose of this article.
• It's a list too long to fit in the associated text article Cult.
• It's useful to the average reader because controversial subjects have high general interest.
• It's useful to laypersons, who participate in cultic studies by to a degree not found in other academic subjects (see Cult). If they don't have graduate student research experience (or even if they do), they may begin by consulting an encyclopedia, and a Google search quickly leads to Wikipedia.
• It's useful to law enforcement officers investigating cult complaints (comparing a local group to their behavior reported elsewhere).
• It's useful to national government employees engaged in legislative, administrative regulation, and cult policy research. See French Report (unofficial translation) and GRTACIGD)
• Group members find it's not useful to them, but I think they grudgingly concede that it's useful to their opponents. Otherwise they wouldn't work so persistently to delete it.
• It's useful to global citizens who are concerned about a group who has moved into their town or neighborhood. Based on USA cult-prevalence statistics (see Cult), roughly 97% of the time they will be reassured by finding no listing for the group locally referred to as a cult.
Eight reasons of usefulness is difficult to oppose on a logical basis – unless of course, one accepts the Stalinist logic of suppressing negative news history. Milo 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
For some reason attempting to placate religionists and what they want to label as a "cult" is rather offpoint for a public encyclopedia. Religion has used the term cult for eons; it is a fun word to use to denigrate "those" churches. Christianity was a labeled a cult from its very beginnning. Tryingn to placate cultists is not Wikipedia's objective and I find most of your reasoning above to be just that. To send missionaries? Just take to your local church and I am sure those concerned for the souls of their fellow man can find a place to serve.
The more I work with this article, the more I am coming to believe that it should be deleted. If all groups that have been identified as cults in the last 50 years is the bar, just list most, if not all, Christian churches. Cultists have been amazingly capable of labeling almost anything that is "other" as a cult. The Roman Catholic Church as been around for more than a few years, it is the largest Christian church in the world and yet it is labeled a cult by many cultists. This list becomes meaningless if it is to be a true list because it turnes into a replica of the Yellow Pages. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals: Cult ratings / Definitions list / Legal status sublists

'Cult' and 'Uncivilized' are such loaded words that they require explanation if used in Wikipedia. [Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Cult.2C_sect] This article comes up with a good chunk of the required explanation but doesn't come up with the final part: "so and so has called X a 'cult' because..." It's the 'because' that will fix this list. I propose that a 'because' clause be included in the rules and supplied for each reference. Maybe even eliminate references that don't have becauses. That would focus the list on people calling groups a cult for specific reasons and avoid casual toss offs. Chee Chahko (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Chahko (03:03): "'Cult' ... such loaded words that they require explanation"
I agree with that part, and so do the off-wiki experts who recommend asking what the speaker means by c-u-l-t. A couple of years ago I proposed a definitions list here, but no one else responded to that idea.
Chahko (03:03): "I propose that a 'because' clause be included in the rules and supplied for each reference."
Such a rules criterion could be written. The problem is that it might not be clear in most cases what definition the source is using when there are 8 or more c-u-l-t homonym definitions to choose from. That's the reason for the current inclusion standard that accepts all definitions, with specific exceptions like fan-cults, heads of state, fiction, and jokes, which are clear to identify. How do you propose a formal way of deciding what each "because" definition is? Milo 07:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe it's time to re-propose. Are you willing to help. I'm open to all ideas and I invite all to participate in a brainstorm.
Here's my first contribution: What about a rating system like is used for TV probrams and movies. Each reference would require a rating or list of ratings.
I've taken a few cults from the media section and written in some ratings. I did it quickly and may have missed There were some broken links and some books. It seems this is a problem too. I think that finding some way of including a reason will help with the problems of broken links and paper references.
RATINGS
L = Charismatic Leader}}
X = Sex
H = High Demand
T = Theological
F = Personality Flip
SAMPLES
[1] (Jewish Times, 2003) L H
(San Francisco Examiner) L X
  • Tony Alamo (a.k.a. Alamo Ministries, Alamo Christian Foundation, Holy Alamo Christian Church, Gloryland Church)
(Religion News) L
(USA Today) V
(Le Monde Diplomatique) F
(Reader's Digest Canada, 1999) V
(San Diego Union Tribune) L
(WP) V L
(Enc) V
(OCRT) V
(BBC) V
(Al Ahram) T
[ Chee Chahko 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC) [32] ]


←Chee Chahko (21:23): "Well, maybe it's time to re-propose."
Just to make it clear, there are three proposals here. A c-u-l-t definitions list is comparatively non-controversial, and a proposal separate from a cult ratings system, or legal-status-sorted sublists. It's possible to combine them, which might be particularly useful within the Other legal-status sublist category.
Comments on Cult ratings system (shown above)
Chee Chahko (21:23): "including a reason will help with the problems of broken links and paper references"
Probably not. Those links were good when they were installed, and link rot occurs in every article. Note that references remain valid even if the link is stale, though they should be marked as stale.
Paper book links not infrequently have "cult" in the title, abstract, or search clip, and so whatever definition they are using that's clearly not excluded (fan-cult, fiction, and head of state books are easy to determine), is accepted.
These are cases where your rating system can't easily determine a "because", yet it's a verifiable reference, potentially including the "because" with a library visit. Since it's unencyclopedic to reject references in paper libraries, your rating system will have to leave some c-u-l-t references unrated.
Chee Chahko (21:23): "Bahá'í Faith (Al Ahram) T"
Does a "T" in your rating system mean fundamentalist, counter-cult, "not Biblically-orthodox" – or a cultus ("cult of veneration") like old RCC "cult of Mary"?
Bahá'í is a cultus founded before 1920, when c-u-l-t had no other meaning except "cult of veneration". That's why the 1920+ rule criterion should be restored to take all old cultus religions off the list again.
The post-1920 group members here want old cultus religions unscientifically, and unethical-revisionistically included, so that RCC and Mormons will complain and support getting LOGRTAC AfD'd. Scientific and historically-ethical Wikipedians should reject their POV-pushing.
Chee Chahko (21:23): "Al-Qaeda (Le Monde Diplomatique) F"
I don't understand what you mean by "Personality Flip".
However, a standard cult label popped out of the first paragraph of the Yahoo (Altavista) translation from French of "Al-Qaida, une secte millénariste" (Al-Qaida, A Millennial Cult): "...[Al-Qaida] started the first conflict between a State and a [cult], the first war which does not have a face and aims, not a territorial conquest, but the physical destruction of the other." In other words, Le Monde Diplomatique says Al-Qaeda intends to be a destructive cult.
The cult-equivalent foreign keywords (secte, secta, sekte, etc.) are currently easy to find and verify by search in untranslated romanized-language documents, and even Cyrillic appears doable (as shown by the Cyrillic-phrase "cult of personality" search and debate on this page). I've done enough Chinese, Japanese, and Thai mechanical translations to think they are also doable.
OTOH, I'm uncertain as to how verifiable it would be to determine a cult rating for characteristics like "High demand", or "Theological" though the mechanically translated context might make it obvious in most cases.
Chee Chahko (21:23): "RATINGS"
You're using a "V" which is not in the ratings key box. I assume it means "Violent". "Violent" is not a good cult-rating word, since the meaning has to be stretched to include mind-controlled suicide by proxy with poisonous gas (Heaven's Gate). "Destructive" is an accepted word, but it applies to less than 20 groups.
Chee Chahko (21:23): "Ananda Marga (Reader's Digest Canada, 1999) V"
Uh oh, you're flirting with a libel suit by taking the words of an admitted criminal out of context. "Ananda Marga denies that the attacks were carried out on its behalf and says it does not condone violence."
Chee Chahko (21:23): "RATINGS L = Charismatic Leader"
Not a good way to rate cults. Many kinds of groups that aren't cults have charismatic leaders. And note that the illegal-death-threat group Cult of Mac has a charismatic machine rather than a charismatic human leader.
Chee Chahko (21:23): "Tony Alamo (Religion News) L"
Btw, as you noted in an earlier edit, (Skepticfiles) is not a valid reference (doesn't mention cult or sect).
Chee Chahko (21:23): "SAMPLES"
Note [1] doesn't link anywhere. You can't use these type footnotes without a References section that is difficult to maintain on a talk page, since it interferes with new sections if placed at the bottom.
C-u-l-t definitions list
Using a c-u-l-t definitions list, the reader decides which definition applies after reading the referenced news article. The educational advantage is that most readers learn that there is more than one definition.
Knowing only one definition results in homonymic conflict. For example, Biblical fundamentalists call RCC and Mormons cults, which is fundamentalist-theologically correct. But average listeners think Biblical fundamentalists mean that RCC and Mormons are like Peoples Temple, which is incorrect, since most people believe that major religions can't be (populist) cults (like Peoples Temple), and sociologists have separate categories for major religions and scientific-sociology-defined cults.
Cult legal status sublists
Now here's the same samples as you selected sorted into my proposed set of sublists of defined, verifiable, police/court-reporting categories:
Destructive cults, Violent felonies, Non-violent felonies, Misdemeanors/Infractions/Orders, Lawsuits, LEO interactions, Other, (Cultus)

Destructive cults (murder and suicide)

Al-Qaeda (Le Monde Diplomatique)
Aum Shinrikyo (WP) (Enc) (OCRT) (BBC)
Non-violent felonies

Misdemeanors/Infractions/Orders

Lawsuits (litigated, or settled out of court)
Adidam Guru hit by sex-slave suit (San Francisco Examiner - April 3, 1985)
LEO interactions (Law Enforcement Officer calls, reports, arrests)

Other
Aesthetic Realism (Jewish Times, 2003)
Tony Alamo (Religion News)
Ananda Marga (Reader's Digest Canada, 1999)
Aquarian Concepts Community (San Diego Union Tribune)
(Cultus) (founded before 1920 and not listed at all under 1920+ rule)
Bahá'í Faith (Al Ahram)
Milo 07:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 20:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is deteriorating to an incredible extent. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. If you want to crete a "cult rating system", please take it top your personal blog. Not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive my mis-use of the term "Rating System." I only intended it as an illustration. Like you I think it would be preposterous to rate cults in an encyclopedia.
This subject came from the WP:WTA#Cult, sect page which includes the word cult. It cautions to use the word about named groups in the following manner: "so and so has called X a 'cult' because..."
This list is unfair because it uses very different usages of the word cult to lump groups in together, painting them all with the same brush if you will. I think that each quote must inlcude a reason why the "reliable source" used the word cult to refer to the group. Encyclopedic readers deserve the courtesy.
The 'rating system' style of categorization was just a proposal to simplify the visual impact for the reader. []
What value do you see in including the 'because' for each quote?
How would you propose to fix that problem?
Do you have any other suggestions.
[ Chee Chahko ] (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The difficulty from this scheme comes if you research the citations. Most do not comply with this scheme - they don't say "Group X is a cult because..." It would require considerable original research for editors to decide which rating to use. WP:WTA is not a policy, and I don't think we need to base the editing of this list on it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. WP:WTA#Cult, sect only applies to text and articles where some other word could express the same idea, and definitely not to articles where "cult" is the specific subject.
However, I also agree with Chee Chahko that WP:WTA#Cult, sect does support "so and so has called X a 'cult' because..." as a good idea for the reader's disambiguated understanding.
A way to express "because" information without text spin or claims of original research, is to quote a source sentence that best assists the reader's ability to discern that "so and so has called X a 'cult' because...". Quotes are never OR, and are a long-established LOGRTAC optional practice in quoting the qualifying "cult" sentence. In some cases they could be the same quote.
That a "because" quote is sometimes immediately available, but not always, is ok under WP:Eventualism. Milo 20:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
So, I'm hearing that a because-quote is:
  • Not inviolation of the rule against Origional Research
  • Would increase clarity in the readers' experience
  • May not be possible for every quote
  • Could help with off-line quotes and broken links
It sounds to me like it could solve several problems and would not interfere with the rules of inclusion. What kind of process do we need to do to implement? Chee Chahko (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Chahko (19:10): "Could help with off-line quotes and broken links"
No, off-line quotes would currently require additional editor effort. Getting them will require acquisition through a paper library, or in some cases a subscription to the pay academic journal database JSTOR. (Amazing that JSTOR has one publication dating back to 1665.) Off-line quotes should become fewer with time as Google scans in most of the world's library books.
Nothing except ongoing wiki-wide maintenance will help broken links.
Chahko (19:10): "What kind of process do we need to do to implement?"
Probably the next step is proof of concept, since there may be because-quote problems not yet noticed.
I suggest that you box format your sample groups with extracted quote sentences for each of the eight, which best encapsulate "so and so has called X a 'cult' because...". The quote can be nonspecific as long as it gives some clue to the reader. The "because" part is more important than the "so and so" part that may only be inferred.
I think that to make this concept work for both editors and readers, you'll also need a definitions list to help pick out the quotes. You'll find the definitions at Cult#Definitions, though be aware that some of them are in paragraph form below the dictionary definitions. To avoid synthesis, all of the definitions have to be listed separately from the groups list. Milo 04:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
["No, off-line quotes would currently require additional editor effort." .... "Nothing except ongoing wiki-wide maintenance will help broken links."]
Sorry, I wasnt' clear. I had meant on a go-forward basis because-quotes would help with off-line references and broken links. Because-quotes would preserve a context for the reader. I agree with you that any refernece up till now will require work. Chee Chahko (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean and I agree. Every time I look at a book reference I wish the editor had provided a quote, since s/he might have misunderstood the word's usage.
Formatting note: I've moved your intra-posting down and provided a quotation (in editor's brackets that show you didn't write it). A quotation usually makes a post interruption unnecessary. Interruptions of long posts are occasionally appropriate with added continuity tags (like "[Foo 00:01, 1 Jan 2000 continues below]"); but they should be avoided, because dialogue threads that get started inside of other posts make it very difficult to follow what the original poster wrote. Milo 23:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Because-Quote POC

Because-Quote Proof of Concept
[2] (Jewish Times, 2003) "like many other cult leaders, he...was a control freak"
(San Francisco Examiner) "disciples...submit themselves to the power of the guru"
  • Tony Alamo (a.k.a. Alamo Ministries, Alamo Christian Foundation, Holy Alamo Christian Church, Gloryland Church)
(Religion News) "Susan Alamo was a charismatic leader, able to persuade followers to obey her commands."
(USA Today) "Osama bin Laden...is its evil and manipulative guru."
(Le Monde Diplomatique) "millenial ideology and deadly tendancies."
(Reader's Digest Canada, 1999)"an Indian religious cult...linked to attacks and bombings..." [they deny the allegation]
(San Diego Union Tribune) 'parallels..."Heaven's Gate,"...a kind of "Doomsday sci-fi theology."'
(Al Ahram) "..Bahá'ísm contradicts the basic tenets of Islam."
The above is the quality of comments one finds in that paragon of journalism known as the National Enquirer. It is sensationalistic, devoid of thought, and only seeks to belittle groups. It is unfortunate that they come from what one would consider reputable newspapers. It is proof that just because a newspapers says it does not mean it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have a strong negative reaction to this type of thing. It does nothing to enlighten readers and does everything for the topic to become an emotional diatribe rather than an academic treatment of groups identified as cults. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you questioning the foundations of this list? These quotes are the basis of inclusion. You commented before I had added the Bahai quote. How do you feel about it beside the other quotes? Chee Chahko (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If reliable source newspapers state it, it's presumed appropriate for this encyclopedia. SR is questioning Wikipedia WP:V reporting policy, the foundations of which are nonnegotiable. No one can change it here, so it's off-topic here. SR must take it to the Village Pump, where he could be told to accept foundation policy, leave, or be removed for disruption.
SR appears to be a group member, who despite his "academic treatment of groups" position, has disruptively opposed academic reporting about his apparent group's belief founder. Milo 23:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the efort, but I think this is a terrible mistake. It requires editors to decide why the groups are being called cults or sects, then pick some quote that substantiates that assumption. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The quote for the Baha'is is certainly not in the vein of the previous ones, but it also is not very informative as to why a group thinks of it as a cult.
I agree with Will's comment above, just find someone that thinks something is a quote and then it gets added to the list. There is no standard except find a quote. This list will be unmanageable and could conceivably have every church, religion, etc. listed. The standard is just so low that the list will be meaningless.
Within Christianity everyone is called a cult from the Roman Catholic Church to the most recently created group with fifteen members and things the return of Christ is "tomorrow". In Islam, it is just as varied. Governments have called almost anything that is newer than Lutheranism a cult. Different denominations are so prone to identifying cults that it is a huge business within the US Evangelical movement; their definition can be reduced to different doctrinal beliefs or heretical thought. Academics have a completely different standard, but at least in from a sociological view point there is a standard. This door is just too wide to be meaningful, but may satiate the desires of cultists to have a list to add their most current target of the day. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Beback (21:14): "It requires editors to decide why the groups are being called cults or sects, then pick some quote that substantiates that assumption."
Sure it does. In an article on global warming, editors are required to read sources, decide why the globe is warming, then pick some quote that substantiates that assumption (or more than one to describe a controversy), and write using that reference, with or without the quote. That's called source-based research, and is required with or without the quote in every article.
Since because-quote is not a violation of guiderule or policy, why is it a mistake? Milo 23:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) After Milo's posting edits out of chronological order I choose not to follow suit. It is disruptive to other editors and assumes that no one is smart enough to follow edits in order. Your edits are not so important they must take precedence over all others. Join the common folk and respect others.

As far as the allegation that "SR appears to be a group member", which makes me laugh out loud! I can just see the lights dim, ooooh, a cult member, careful everyone, one of 'them is in the room. Do you know where your children are? Quick hide them before they are contaminated. That is exactly the kind of blatant stupidity and discrimination is caused by this type of article. A cultist sees a monster everywhere, but fails to see the one in the mirror. If you are asking if I am a member of the Roman Catholic cult, no. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; the other religious cult of all 36,000 Christian cults. The rest of the diatribe is beneath response and is more personal attack. I caution you to stop immediately.

Milo, you would be wrong again. What I have said does not violate policies, but what I support is make an article that contributes to knowledge and is manageable. I will say it again, we can find quotes for almost all religions, denominations, churches, etc. that claim the "other" is a cult. Making a list of this type devalues the term of cult because everyone is a member. Please try to read my edits first rather than reacting to your own fears and personal agenda. It will lead to a better article in a cooperative editing environment. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that I have conveyed the wrong impression to Storm and Will.
  1. The because-quote would not be part of the criteria for includion. It would merely add more information for the user. So Storms fears about mass inclusion are baseless.
  2. I think that adding the because-quote is in line with Wikipedia source based editing style as Milo has pointed out. So Wills caution about deciding what quote to include is baseless.
  3. I also think that the great fault of this list is that the word Cult is not placed in a context for the reader.
Cult is such a slippery word that there needs to be a way for the reader to get a foot hold. They wonder, "Are all the cults on this list led by charismatic leaders? Do they all take excessive amounts of their members money? Why is my religion part of this list?" A Bahai who sees the article in the muslim paper which was used to include them on the list, could tell that the reason they were considered a cult is because of their differences from Islam. Islamicist can tell that from the list too.
Maybe quotes could be included by editors if the meaning of cult requires clarification. That would be less effort but still provide a context for the reader. I'd still like to see all because-quotes included though. Chee Chahko (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The one part of this proposal that I do like is the provision for noting that a group, its members, or defenders deny that they are a cult or sect. That would address a concern that has been raised occasionally. But picking accusatory blurbs stills seems like a bad idea. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
My position is more against the standards used for inclusion. I think it would be helpful to have an explanation as to why groups are included on the list, but trying to determine who is qualified to make such statements will be difficult. Simply quoting a newspaper that quotes Joe Smuck has little validity when compared to a reputably sourced expert. They are vastly different standards that anyone can recognize the value of one over the other.
Baseless? Tell me, what this lists looks like when opened to the standard of find someone that calls it a cult and it gets listed. You will have the Roman Catholic Churches listed along side the (insert dangerious cult of choice). What is the value of such a list? Does it provide any standard by which a reader understands what a cult is? Adding a statement clarifying why the group is on the list will at least help readers understand that some are just plain silly and others are legitimate; however the problem is that they are all on the same list. It demeans the designation when talking about a dangerous cult and a religion that has been around for nearly 2000 years. The standard is too loose to make it of worth. Does this make any sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)