Talk:List of purported cults/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

RfC Summary

There is a disagreement between editors about which sources can be used as a basis for that inclusion of groups on the list, and about how those references must be worded in order for the groups to qualify.

1. If any editors are coming in to comment they may want to glance first at #Taxonomy, which is the proposed taxonomy that editors seem to agree upon in principle. The active disputes seem to be on specifically a given source must refer to a group as a "cult" in order for it to count as a usable citation. A side issue, which had previously been agreed to but which seems to have reignited, is on whether "sect" and "cult" are synonyms in British English. More generally, suggestions on how to have a more productive editing process would be appreciated by all editors, I'm sure. Thanks

2. *The consensus agreed was that only these groups notably referred as cults by the agreed sources should be listed

3. *One editor is using sources (such as AFF, Steve Hassan) which have disclaimers on their websites that according to another editor makes these list unsuitable for the purpose stated and in contradiction with consensus reached on the purpose of the article. See #Disclaimer_for_the_AFF and #Hassan

4. Same editor is adding Encarta as a source, just because Encarta mentions the name of a group in their article on cults, even when the text in the article does not refer them as cults. See #Encarta as a source?

5. Same editor has added almost every citation to the existing article. Another editor has provided no sources, and has added no citations, yet has complained repeatedly about the work done by others. Furthermore the other editor has repeatedly reverted edits without discussion.

6. Same editor has shon total disregard for contributions made by other editor, acussing him of vandalism when challenged on the validity of sources or asked to slow down and seek consensus before major additions.

Editors comments here, please

1. The taxonomy is good. 2. I didn't know consensus had made it binding yet. I guess nobody officially asked, "Shall we pull the trigger?". 3. Sources are good. I think it will help to clarify that NPOV citations are not allowed. For example, if the New York Times says Q calls P a cult, we wouldn't use that. But if the New York Times says, "John Doe, leader of the P cult," we would use that. Does that help with this item? 4. Same principle as above. Let's avoid citing other NPOV citations. We want people who have staked their reputation on a citation. 5. Let's be nice to each other, remember to assume good faith, avoid wikistress, and practice above all wikilove. Tom Haws 23:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


Contents


sample run #2 (now w/ 7 sources)

If you see something amiss in this run, please help us pinpoint what has gone wrong in the way we ordered our sources. Perhaps we placed a source too high or too low in global credibility. We would rather discuss breadth of credibility of sources than malignancy of cited groups.

  • Level I
  • Aum Shinrikyo
  • Branch Davidians
  • Children of God
  • est
  • Hare Krishna
  • Heaven's Gate
  • Lifespring
  • Lyndon LaRouche movement
  • Manson Family
  • MOVE
  • Order of the Solar Temple
  • Osho Rajneesh's "Sannyasins"
  • People's Temple
  • Posse Comitatus
  • Scientology
  • Symbionese Liberation Army
  • The Way International
  • Transcendental Meditation
  • Unification Church
  • Level II
  • Beasts of Satan
  • Christian Science
  • Kim Jong-il
  • Mungiki
  • Philippine Benevolent Missionaries Association
  • Raelism
  • Roch "Moses" Theriault
  • Sathya Sai Baba
  • Synanon
  • Level III
  • Antonines
  • Christian Community
  • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
  • Grail Movement
  • Mahikari-Sukyo Mahikari
  • Neo-Apostolic Church
  • Sokka Gakkai/Nichiren Soshu
  • Universal Alliance
  • Universal Church of God
  • Level VI
  • Concerned Christians
  • Creativity Movement
  • House of Yahweh
  • Jeffrey Lundgren
  • Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God (Uganda)
  • Level VII
  • Eckankar
  • Elan Vital ~
  • Exclusive Brethren
  • Falun Gong
  • International Churches of Christ ~
  • Jehovah's Witnesses ~
  • Jews for Jesus ~


These groups are lacking in agreed-upon sources that have labelled them "cults" or "sects", and will be removed from the article eventually unless additional sources are found.

  • Level VII-R
  • Al-Qaeda
  • Amway
  • Aquarian Concepts
  • Church Universal and Triumphant
  • Co-Counselling
  • Herbalife
  • International Peace Mission Movement
  • Landmark Education
  • Nuwaubians
  • Panawave Laboratory
  • Level VIII
  • Dragon Rouge
  • Primerica
  • Rastafari
  • Swami Shyam
  • Temple of Set

Taxonomy

This is a proposed taxonomy for organizing this article. User:Hawstom (Tom) proposed implementing it after May 1. Feel free to edit.

The taxonomy is based on the non-biased concept of listing groups that have been cited as cults by sources that have, in descending order, worldwide support (respect/recognition/circulation/funding/accountability). We make no judgement as to the knowledge, interest, or intent of the sources.

Cohort A - Groups cited as cults ("sects" in non-English languages) by sources considered globally as mainstream

Level 1, sources with widest support (Major newspapers & encyclopedias with worldwide circulation)

Cited as cults in the most careful major periodicals:

  • Associated Press
  • Reuters
  • Wall Street Journal
  • Boston Globe
  • Los Angeles Times
  • Washington Post The Cult Controversy series [1]
  • Der Spiegel
  • Le Monde
  • Guardian
  • Times of London
  • Jerusalem Post
  • The Straits Times (Singapore)
  • Current online version of Encyclopædia Britannica
  • 1911 EB
  • Encarta - Disputed see below

Level 2, sources with narrower support than level 1 (Magazines, leading broadcasters, major news websites)

Cited as cults in one of the following major secular magazines with worldwide circulation:

  • Economist
  • Time
  • Newsweek
  • New Yorker
  • Harpers
  • USA Today
  • Reader's Digest
  • People (magazine) not a single applicable hit searching on "cult", so it is apparently a sterling example of a source with "rare hits" and "wide appeal"
  • Salon.com
  • Slate.com
  • BBC
  • ABC
  • CBS
  • NBC
  • CNN
  • ZDF
  • New York Times


Cohort B - Groups cited as cults by sources that seek to be in harmony with the global mainstream

Level 3, sources with narrower support than level 2: Official and semi-official government sources

Cited as cults by official arms of more than one other major groups(?), or by government sources.

Level 4, sources with narrower support than level 3 (Wide religious groups)

Cited as cults in major religious or partisan periodicals that take evident care for wider respectability:

  • Local newspapers:
  • Point Reyes Light

Level 5, sources with narrower support than level 4 (Scholars writing in peer-reviewed journals)

  • New Religious movements scholars
  • Sociologists
  • Psychiatrists

Cohort C - Groups called cults or sects by sources with little accountability to global mainstream convention

Level 6, sources with narrower support than level 5 (Diplomatic non-scholarly anti-cultists and anti-cult organizations)

Cited by individuals or organizations who are prone to use the term "cult" cautiously.

  • Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance www.religioustolerance.org
  • culticstudies.org [5]
  • The Center for Millennial Studies www.mille.org
  • Cult Awareness and Information Centre http://www.caic.org.au (dead link?)
  • INFORM UK
  • CESNUR (a controversial group too)
  • Steve Hassan Freedom of Mind Resource Center [6] Disputed - due to disclaimer on website

Level 7 sources with narrowest support (Less-diplomatic non-scholarly anti-cultists and anti-cult organizations)

Cited by individuals or organizations who are prone to use the term "cult" actively. They may use a custom narrow definition of the term "cult" for their own purposes.

  • Info-Cult www.infocult.org
  • FactNet www.factnet.org
  • AFF, now International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA). Objected by Zappaz, due to disclaimer on their website
  • Cults on Campus
  • Cult Awareness Network (The CAN was bankrupted and now belongs to Scientology)
  • Christian Research Institute

Level 7R sources not suitable

  • Rick Ross Disputed See user:Zappaz's many objections below

Groups that are not listed

Level 8 No source, just an editor added it

  • If no sources, we can't list. Nothing goes in this category.
  • holding bin on talk page to give editors time to find source


Attempt to consolidate proposals

I see real progress and hope we can come to an agreement.

  1. Replacing "notably referred as a cult by ..." with "referred directly as a cult by...". This is to avoid inclusion of NPOV mentions (Ses Tom's comment on this page, above), i.e. If the NYT says "Joe Blow the anti-cult expert said Habbad is a cult", that does not count. On the other hand if the NYT says "Joseph Zimmerman, a member of the Habbad cult...", then it does
  2. "Fairly neutral sources" needs to stay, otherwise the article becomes ripe for blacklisting exploits. Otherwise, an ex-member of Habbad puts up a website that says "Habbad is a destructive cult", and then lists it here.
  3. No problem with using Encarta or other encyclopedias, providing it is within the scope explained in #1
  4. Time horizon. We need a time horizon, otherwise Christianity could be included, as it is referred as a cult/sect in literature studying the early Christians. (that aspect exactly is discused in recent articles in Times and Newsweek, magazine due to the interest spawned by The Da Vinci code best seller). Any proposals about what time horizon to use?
  5. No problems in citing articles in Hassan's or Ross's websites, unless these articles can be found on the websites of these sources. For example, an online versioon of an article from The Guardian can be used, rather than a link to the same article on Ross' site.
  6. We can include groups referresd as "sects" if the source is in French or in a source from the United Kingdom.
  7. We exclude personality cults (heads of state), fancults of popular culture, and groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups)
  8. We use Tom's "width of consensus" as the taxonomy measure (Widest consensus, Decreasing consensus and Narrowest application);

--Zappaz 16:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see us any closer to an agreement. All you've done is acknowledge that fictional groups should be excluded. Would any of the sources currently included in the current taxonomy be excluded because they are not "fairly neutral sources"? I still haven't seen any definition of that term. Why should Christianity be excluded? Wasn't it a cult or sect at one time? If Joe Blow says a groups is a cult, then it counts as Joe Blow's citation, regardless of the source citing him. But groups that are included in articles in cults should be allowed too, even when "cult" is not used inthe same sentence. Cults and sects should be included, because the terms are used interchangeably in English and other languages. -Willmcw 17:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Correction - I see that Zappaz is now saying that she is willing to accept "sect" from UK sources. -Willmcw 18:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Try to see things on the bright side, Will. Zappaz has given us quite a nice summary, in fact. I will indicate my support below: Tom Haws 17:40, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  1. I support this in spirit. To be precise, we could list Habbad as cited by Joe Blow, but not by NYT.
  2. I don't support this. As I understand, the only reason we aren't including Hassan and Ross is that they would overwhelm the article. It isn't a philosophical exclusion, simply a practical cutoff. So I propose that we simply start with the greatest width of consensus and work our way down until the article can hold no more. If Sally Exmember Cultwatcher says Qbert is a cultist, we don't exclude the citation on the basis of Sally's unreliability. But we may exclude the citation because she simply isn't widely enough acclaimed and accepted to have made our list before we got tired. In a perfect world, Sally, we would include your citations too. But we simply can't seem to get (down) to them.
  3. I support this.
  4. This is an interesting concept that we should address, and you are absolutely correct in spirit. 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. Organizing that will be a monumental task for another year.
  5. This isn't clear to me. Please rewrite your comment above (we won't get upset).
  6. I support this. Or as Will is pushing for, we might also use the article to explore the word sect.
  7. Yes. It can be stated that this article is about actual organized groups and high-commitment unified movements.
  8. I support my idea.  :-D

Thanks, both of you. Tom Haws 17:40, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, Will, Andries. I see that the main point of contention remains #2 in my proposal above. We need to limit the scope of the sources, otherwise the article will be filled up with nonsese, and the cleanup that we will ensue will be unbearable tedious. Wouldn't it be better to agree on a group of sources and limit ourselves to them, at least for the next 60 days and see were we get to? That would also take care of Will's concern about the definition of "fairly neutral sources". My compromise proposal then, is to limit ourselves on the curret Level I and Level II sources as described somewhere above, of course within the caveat that these have to be "referred directly as a cult by..." not hearsay or NPOV citations. We can also decide to limit ourselves to the last 50 years as a time horizon, to avoid overcomplication at this early stage. Regarding Ross and AFF, the reason for exclusion is not the number of groups, but the disclaimers on both their sites (you can read the exact letter of the disclaimer above in this page). So, summarizing a new proposal:
  1. Criteria for listing: Groups "referred directly as a cult by ...".
  2. ... Sources for citations from current list in Level 1 and Level 2 only, providing it is within the scope explained in #1
  3. Time horizon: Last 50 years;
  4. Each mention needs a reference (no exception), best if directly from the website of that source.
  5. We can include groups referred as "sects" if the source is in French or in a source from the United Kingdom.
  6. We exclude personality cults (heads of state), fancults of popular culture, and groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups)
  7. We use Tom's "width of consensus" as the taxonomy measure: Widest consensus, Decreasing consensus and Narrowest application, in descending order and as the grouping to replace current sections in the article;

--Zappaz 20:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the spirit of compromise. I look forward to more on this discussion after the weekend. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:14, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Smiles from Tom. We will start with levels I and II. Should we have a holding tank for other groups (a subpage)? "Dear Anon: Because your addition to LoPC did not have a source citation, we moved it to LoPC/Holding tank. In order to maintain our policy of non-bias, we are currently only accepting citations from sources with the very widest worldwide support and acclaim." Tom Haws 22:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

That could work. Let's open Talk:List of purported cults/onhold page and move there any groups on the current article that does not meet the agreed upon criteria, and let's roll our sleeves at the task at hand. --Zappaz 23:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thumbs up. Tom Haws 05:08, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise version:

  1. Criteria for listing: Groups "referred directly as a cult by ...".
  2. ... Sources for citations from current list in (super) Levels 1, 2, and 3, as previously agreed, providing it is within the scope explained in #1
  3. Time horizon: Last 200 years; (the advent of new religious movements dates back to 19th century, at a minimum is should be long enough to include Father Divine's following, which is frequently-cited as having been a cult.)
  4. Each mention needs a reference (no exception), best if directly from the website of that source.
  5. We can include groups refered as "sects" if the source is in French or in a source from the United Kingdom, or any other country besides the U.S.
  6. We exclude personality cults (heads of state), fancults of popular culture, and groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups)
  7. We use Tom's "width of consensus" as the taxonomy measure: Widest consensus, Decreasing consensus and Narrowest application, in descending order and as the grouping to replace current sections in the article;

-Willmcw 22:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise version 2:

  1. Criteria for listing: Groups "referred directly as a cult by ...".
  2. ... Sources for citations from current list in Levels 1 and 2 and 3,as previously agreed, providing it is within the scope explained in #1; We start with press/media and we can move to Level III, after this round.
  3. Time horizon: Last 200 50 years; (the advent of new religious movements dates back to 19th century, at a minimum is should be long enough to include Father Divine's following, which is frequently-cited as having been a cult) (Let's keep this article to be contemporary in nature and non-historical. We can do a separate article about the emergence of new religions and include current religions once called cults,etc.);
  4. Each mention needs a reference (no exception), best if directly from the website of that source.
  5. We can include groups refered as "sects" if the source is in French or in a source from the United Kingdom; or any other country besides the U.S.
  6. We exclude personality cults (heads of state), fancults of popular culture, and groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups);
  7. We use Tom's "width of consensus" as the taxonomy measure: Widest consensus, Decreasing consensus and Narrowest application, in descending order and as the grouping to replace current sections in the article.

--Zappaz 23:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please explain why all sources above the previously labelled "level 7r" are unacceptable today, when you explicitly agreed to them previously. -Willmcw 23:42, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Will, the idea is to start with Level I and Level II, roll our sleeves and get to work on these. When we are satisfied that we have exhausted these sources, in say 60 days or so, we can continue from there on if we still have the energy. The other agreed levels are still in play. In this first round, groups and sources not on Level I or II can go on the holding pen at Talk:List of purported cults/onhold for safekeeping. Hope this clarifies this last hurdle and that we can finally get to do some research and editing... --Zappaz 16:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree strongly. I don't want to spend another several months fighting over sources. Let's settle this now. What is your objection to using sources besides Rick Ross? You agreed to them previously, so why can't we use them now? -Willmcw 17:07, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz and I simply think it is too much to chew on at first. But if you have that much energy, who am I to throttle you? Go for the whole enchilada (assuming others agree). All I ask is that for the sake of the article's ongoing quality, you try to start with level 1 and work your way down. It's just a request. Tom Haws 19:26, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
What's left to chew on? We've spent weeks discussing the taxonomy, always with the assumption that its concept was to allow essentially all sources to be used, in a sliding scale. The "test-runs" that have been posted above are examples of how we can switch over to the taxonomy today. I don't see any reason to exclude properly sourced groups. I have agreed with Zappaz to exclude Ross in exchange for including everyone else, and no one has presented a reason to change that compromise. I don't know of any reason to "phase in" the new taxonomy level by level, in 60-day increments. Let's just go for it, as previously agreed to. -Willmcw 20:09, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
PS, I've added the designations "Cohort A", etc., to the three groupings of levels in order to allow easier reference to them. I think that some of our previous discussions of "levels" may have confused the two. -Willmcw 20:31, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Great idea on the cohorts. Again, better see what Zappaz says, but I say there is no reason to throttle your energy. I dived in to the article myself yesterday, but then realized I had promised not to edit until May, and discarded my edits. I am all thumbs up. Tom Haws 20:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


No problems on using all agreed sources. I just ask for a simple thing: Start with Cohort A (level I and II). When we are all satisfied we have done everything to source from Cohort A, we then move to Cohort B and so forth. I don't want to see any groups added from Cohorts B or C until we have completed Cohort A. How do we know if we have completed sourcing from Cohort A? when nobody has added any groups to the article for 7 days. Can we get moving now? --Zappaz 21:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just a reminder to Willmc: Hassan, Ross and AFFs group lists are all out as these fall outside of the scope as agreed ("referred directly as a cult"), due to the disclaimers on their websites in which they state that being on their list does not mean that they consider these a cult. Articles on these websites that originally appeared on Cohort A sources, are OK as references, providing we do not have access to the source itself as a reference. -- Zappaz 22:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree that groups which are included in lists that have disclaimers should not be included. But articles on those websites or by those sources (excluding Ross) which directly name groups are not covered by those disclaimers and should be included. I disagree with any phase-in. Let's role out the new taxonomy and work with it in place. That's how Wikipedia works. We've already talked this thing to death. Every group now on the list has already been sourced, so it is only a matter of double-checking the sources already applied (and finding new ones). Cheers, -Willmcw 22:23, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia works by consensus and we are trying to get to an agreement on how to move forward. Note that Status-quo is a no go, that is whay we are having this discussion! We have exchanged proposals and gave and take. Let's get started with Level I and level II (now Cohort A) everything else goes to the holding pen. Otherwise we are back in square zero.--Zappaz 00:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I can't agree to any proposal that removes sourced groups from the list. Especially since you have given no reason for doing so. Which one is square one? Cheers, -Willmcw 00:37, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Square zero (not one) is the state we were at when we where reverting each other edits the allowed numbers of reverts in 24 hrs, a.k.a. an edit war...

I started a process of discussion and negotiation to move forward, that I though was getting us somewhere. But it seems that your intention is to keep the status quo. That is not what this discussion was all about. . The reason for requesting the temporary removal of sourced groups from levels other than Level I and Level II, is to allow the article to build up from the wider consensus sources first and see where it get us after a period of research and edit. When we are done we can move to other levels. One step at the time. Here is the proposal again. Can we get started? --Zappaz 04:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal:

  1. Criteria for listing: Groups "referred directly as a cult by ...".
  2. ... Sources for citations from current list in Levels 1 and 2 providing it is within the scope explained in #1; We start with wider consensus sources from press/media and we can move to Level III, after this round and so on;
  3. Groups/sources not on Level I or Level II are moved to a holding area Talk:List of purported cults/on hold until such time in which these sources are added to the article;
  4. Time horizon: Last 50 years. Let's keep this article to be contemporary in nature and non-historical. We can do a separate article about the emergence of new religions and include current religions once called cults, etc.;
  5. Each mention needs a reference (no exception), best if directly from the website of the original source;
  6. We can include groups refered as "sects" if the source is in French or in a source from the United Kingdom
  7. We exclude personality cults (heads of state), fancults of popular culture, and groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups);
  8. We use Tom's "width of consensus" as the taxonomy measure: Widest consensus, Decreasing consensus and Narrowest application, in descending order and as the grouping to replace current sections in the article.
I'm willing to accept all those items except #2. You have not given any reason for removing sourced groups from this list. If the "holding area" is part of the list (groups with less consensus) then that'd be ok, but it is not OK to remove them until some undetermined future date. The original deadline was May 1, so we can do whatever it is that you want to do before then. (And I disagree with your history of the editing of this article, but we don't need to get into that). Cheers, -Willmcw 04:34, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)


Consolidated proposal

OK, in the spirit of moving forward, I have ammended the proposal. See below. Hopefully we can now get on with it... --Zappaz

  1. Criteria for listing: Groups "referred directly as a cult by ...".
  2. ... sources for citations from current list in Levels 1 and 2 providing it is within the scope explained in #1; We start with wider consensus sources from press/media and we can move to other levels after this round;
  3. Groups in the current article not on Level I or Level II can remain in the article as long as they fall within the scope #1;
  4. Time horizon: Last 50 years. Keeping this article to be contemporary in nature and non-historical. We can do a separate article about the emergence of new religions and include current religions once called cults, etc.;
  5. Each mention needs a reference (no exception), best if directly from the website of the original source;
  6. We can include groups refered as "sects" if the source is in French or in a source from the United Kingdom
  7. We exclude personality cults (heads of state), fancults of popular culture, and groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups);
  8. We use Tom's "width of consensus" as the taxonomy measure: Widest consensus, Decreasing consensus and Narrowest application, in descending order and as the grouping to replace current sections in the article.
Could you please explain how your points #2 and #3 will work in practice? I don't follow. -Willmcw 18:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Very simple, Will:
  • For new goups we add to the article, point #2 applies;
  • For groups already in the article, point #3 applies;
  • For both of the above #1 and #5 always applies.
Example:
  • Group XX currently not listed, that is sourced from Level I or Level II sources - we add, no problems, providing it conforms with criteria in points #1 and #5;
  • Group YY currently listed and that conforms with criteria in point #1 & #5, remains in the article;
  • Group WW currently listed that does not conform with both criteria in points #1 & #5, is immediately deleted;
  • New group ZZ found that is not sourced from Level I or Level II but that conforms with points #1 & #5, can go in the holding area, until such time we expand beyond Level I and Level II sources.
--Zappaz 02:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, let's just go to the new system and forget about waiting periods and holding areas. There is no reason that we should arbitrarily exclude properly sourced groups. -Willmcw 03:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have done my share of trying to move forward, but it seems that you are not interested in working toward achieving consensus. The last proposal I made is fair, has a rational that is easy to understand and makes sense. The ball in now in your court. --Zappaz 15:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yet you've never explained why you want this holding area and waiting period. As a compromise, I am willing to have a note asking editors to discuss their addition onthe talk page first. That is sometimes done with controversial articles. That should address your apparent concern that the article is going to be flooded with added groups. But to tell editors that they cannot add properly sourced edits does not make sense, and I haven't heard a legitimate reason for it. -Willmcw 17:32, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
That is not a compromise. I have explained the rational several times already. Each time I explain something, you you dismiss it. Is your intention to maintain the status-quo? Status quo is not sustainable as we have been a) reverting each other edits and b) discussinng these proposals for more than a week now. My proposal above stands. If you do not understand some aspects of the proposal, please read the explanations above. --Zappaz 19:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that having editors discuss their edits on this page before making them would accomplish the goal of preventing the list from being overwhelmed. Most of the items on your proposal are criterions for inclusion. The holding area and waiting period are restrictions on how the article can be edited. I don't know of any other article which is handled that way and I don't approve of it. We can informally agree amongst ourselves to not add new groups for a while. I don't see anyone waiting around to add a lot of new groups. If we can't agree then I suggest we replace the old RfC with one on the specific question of waiting periods and holding areas. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yet another attempt to move forward

Ammended proposal. Please note that is my my last attempt. --Zappaz 01:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. Criteria for listing: Groups "referred directly as a cult by ...".
  2. ... sources for citations from agreed sources provided it is within the scope explained in #1; Recommendation to editors is to start with wider consensus sources: Level I and Level II. New groups sourced from other levels than I and II, editors need to discuss their edits in the talk page;
  3. Any groups already sourced can remain in the article as long as they fall within the scope #1, Otherwise these groups can be removed from the article.
  4. Each group needs a reference to prove that it is within the scope of #1 and from the list of agreed sources(no exception), best if directly from the website of the original source;
  5. Time horizon: Last 50 years. Keeping this article to be contemporary in nature and non-historical. We can do a separate article about the emergence of new religions and include current religions once called cults, etc.;
  6. We can include groups refered as "sects" if the source is in French or in a source from the United Kingdom
  7. We exclude personality cults (heads of state), fancults of popular culture, and groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups);
  8. We use Tom's "width of consensus" as the taxonomy measure: Widest consensus, Decreasing consensus and Narrowest application, in descending order and as the grouping to replace current sections in the article.
Thanks for your patience. Can you please explain the term "agreed sources?" Am I correct that it includes everyone except Rick Ross and lists that have disclaimers? BTW, for #5, I assume that refers to the sources, not the groups. Item #3 seems unnecessary. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed sourced: Any of the sources listed in this page that do have not been disputed due to disclaimers that oppose the criteria in #1. As it stands now these include Ross, AFF and Hassan's lists. If we find any other source in the list that has a similar disclaimer, these will be not acceptable either.
  • Point #5 refers to groups, of course. See previous discussion in this matter.Keeping this article to be contemporary in nature and non-historical. We can do a separate article about the emergence of new religions and include current religions once called cults, etc.
  • Point #3 is absolutely necessary. Leaving groups in the article that do not fall within the agreed scope, is not possible.
--Zappaz 15:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Agreed" sources should be all except those that have been excluded. The only sources that we have agreed to exclude is Ross and those lists that have meaningful disclaimers. The only thing to agree on with other sources is where in the taxonomy a new source fits. Regarding #3, my point is that if the other criteria are followed it is redundant. All groups, whether currently on the list or not, have to abide by the same criteria. This list is inevitably historical - the Branch Davidians haven't been around for a long time. I think that 50 years is unnecessarily short, but I'll compromise in the interest of editorial comity. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)