Talk:List of groups referred to as cults
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. |
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
|
[edit] First Draft Poll on Inclusion Criteria
This is just a quick poll to gage consensus on the above discussions. I've attempted to summarise what has been proposed and may have missed adding or removing some points. Feel free to edit what I have written. I'm hoping that people will add their Y's and N's or suggested improvements. [ cairoi 23:22, 27 July 2006 ]
New or returning editors: Please don't vote in this poll until you have read the article section introductions and the entire current talk page, or have caught up with what you missed. If you don't make that effort, you may misunderstand subtle or complex issues, which will distract current editors while educating you. (edit ok)
Preamble: This list is a bibliography of references to groups as cults according to the following rules. A group's inclusion in this list does not means that such group is a cult or imply any harmful or benificial qualities.
- Y cairoi 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y Will Beback 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y Monger 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- N (excess removal/change ("index" to "bibliography")) Milo 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y BenC7 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y Smee 08:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
- Y TalkAbout 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1. Only references to groups can be included where groups may be organisations or sets of individual practitioners.
- Y cairoi 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y -Will Beback 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y Monger 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y (with tweaks; "defined as either") Milo 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y BenC7 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- N too inclusive --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y Smee 08:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
- Y TalkAbout 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
2. The groups must be referenced as a "cult" directly by sources that qualify according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. A reference may include the name of the cult if that cult includes the word "cult".
- Y cairoi 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y -Will Beback 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y Monger 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y (with tweaks; generalize 1st line to all references) Milo 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y BenC7 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- N too inclusive --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y Smee 08:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
- Y TalkAbout 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
3. The groups must be referenced any foreign language word, phrase, or contextual translation which by its plain meaning refers to one of the non-excluded definitions of "cult" in English
- Y cairoi 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y -Will Beback 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- N (but Y in subgroups if subgroups are consensed) Milo 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- N (but Y in subgroups if subgroups are consensed) Monger 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y Smee 08:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
- Y TalkAbout 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
4. The groups must be referenced as a "cult" within the last 50 years.
- Y cairoi 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y -Will Beback 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y Monger 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y Milo 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y BenC7 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- N (five years) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y Smee 08:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
- TalkAbout 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
5. The groups referenced as cults must not have been named by Reliable Sources to independently exist prior to 1920 in their substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices.
- Y cairoi 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- N (I believe an earlier date should be chosen) -Will Beback 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y Monger 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y (no earlier date yet has referenced authority) Milo 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y BenC7 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- N - Bias against NRMs. Sfacets 11:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Y Smee 08:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
- Y TalkAbout 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Not included in this list are personality cults (heads of state, government, and media celebrities of popular culture) and groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups).
- Y cairoi 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y -Will Beback 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y Monger 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y (tweaks; government includes
heads of state) Milo 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC) - Y BenC7 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y Smee 08:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
- Y TalkAbout 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
7. [New rule for Multiple Keyword sublists:] Suggested: "Editors may define a sublist, by adding zero or more additional search keywords to { "cult OR cults" }." "Examples: { "cult" & "devotion" }, { "cult" & "police" }, { "cult" & "brainwashing OR "mind control" } ", etc. Adding zero keywords allows the editor to change other named parameters associated with the baseline list of { "cult OR cults" }", such as to require Multiple Sources."
- Y cairoi 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- N (I don't think sublists are helpful) -Will Beback 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y (but needs a rewrite) Milo 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- N (Not helpful - most people are looking for a yes/no, and possibly a source) BenC7 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
N excuse to vandalise the pageNo opinion --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)- Y (but needs rewrite) Monger 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y (please clarify further, where is "Sect")TalkAbout 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
8. [New rule to implement Multiple Sources:] "Editors who create sublists may define and label them to require either ONE or TWO Reliable Sources for the same referred cult."
- Y cairoi 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- N (I oppose sublists) - Will Beback 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y Milo 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- N (Sublists not necessary - readers can go to relevant page to find out more detailed info) BenC7 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
NNo opinion --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)- Y (but for me it's much more important that the primary list requires 2 sources) Monger 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y (one or two is fine...one as long as it is a good source)TalkAbout 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
9. [New rule to implement foregn term identification:] "Each reference to a group is to be followed by parentheses containing identification of the actual word used to refer to them as a cult or foreign translation meaning cult; like "(cult)", or "(secte)", or "(cult/secte/sekte/etc.)" for multiple references." Milo 10:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y cairoi 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y -Will Beback 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Y Milo 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- N (Not necessary, since references are provided) BenC7 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y Monger 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y ( Secte,secte,sekte or Secta as long as it is clearly understood or an editor provides the translation)TalkAbout 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comment ("sekte" list = NRMs)
The reformed set of criteria will only lead to duplicating the List of new religious movements here, given enough effort to search for references.
- The only limiting factor will be the newness, so only NRMs qualify
- Inclusion of german/dutch "Sekte" from old sources will pull in nearly every "small" christian group
- Not weighting "Sekte"-labelling against newer and more widerspread labelling will prevent any focus
For examples see Cao Dai and Kimbanguism (member of the WCC).
Pjacobi 08:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, this list is somehere between Destructive cult and List of new religious movements and the proposed changes would nudge it closer to list of NRMs. In my view it would be better to merge or delete this list as the problems inherent to this approach have not affected the other articles. Addhoc 10:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I take this foreign-cult-word=NRM issue seriously. For starters, it now seems to me that the baseline list should not refer to any foreign translations of cult at all, if only because the disclaimers required for fairness become too difficult to manage by mostly English-speaking editors. Recall how many kilobytes have been consumed here in talk by managing the French Report. • However, there is a possibility of managing foreign translations of cult in sublists, which is where the useful but untidy French Report came to dock. This is yet another indication that sublists are needed despite Will Beback's opposition to them. • As to the specific German language issue, maybe "sekte" for "cult" is obsolete by decades? Can a Wikipedia bilingual commenter be located who has lived in Germany long enough to know how German media individually refers to each component of the spectrum of cults? What current German words or phrases are used to describe:
1) destructive cults,
2) mind-control cults,
3) public-begging cults, and
4) devotional cults?
I don't list cult debate proselytizing or recruiting as a type of cult, because IMHO, that is a simple and biased dislike of NRMs competition with Christianity and Islam, as well as long-established Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, all of whom do the same thing. Milo 17:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Definitions list issues
The above draft wording seems peculiar. Preamble is fine after spelling is fixed. After that, the complexity of the rules seems geared to produce a certain result, rather than a simple guideline following obviously from the name of the article. There is a meaning of the word cult that does not refer to the group, and any inclusion of that meaning on this list is absurd. This is a list of groups - all groups must be referred to as groups and in so far as they are groups, or they are not references to groups. The second sentence of #2 seems geared specifically to include a couple non-group cults. #3 - all foreign languages - is not unreasonable but opens up a fair amount of OR and interpretation - does the word foo in Barian really mean the same as "cult" in English? This is an English wiki, I don't see why it can't be Anglocentric here, with special mention for French or Spanish references. This brings me to #6, exclusions. Personally, I would like to see at the beginning a discussion of various meanings of the word cult with some simple examples, sort of like this: "Cult" may be used to refer to:
- a system of practices in a technical sense (cultus), as "cult of Mary"
- things related to the worship of a deity, as "cult of Hera"
- fans of a celebrity, as the "fancult of Britney Spears"
- the intensity of those fans, as "a cult movie"
- a political support base, as "Salazar's cult" (just an example)
- a group in tension with its surrounding society (sociological) (avoids example...)
- an unorthodox or fringe Christian group (counter-cult)
- a group which outsiders view as mentally or financially exploitive (anti-cult)
- a self-destructive or suicide group (destructive cult)
And then specify that this list covers senses 6,8,9 or 7,8,9 or whatever. Gimmetrow 13:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- "second sentence of #2 seems geared specifically to include a couple non-group cults." You've already made your point about that. I accept that rhetorical distinction, but now the lawcraft objective is to extinguish it. • This is a routine problem. Lawcraft (or its kin rulecraft) understands that natural rhetorical definitions must be flexed to avoid loopholes that would destroy the utility of the rules. For example, under USA law tobacco is defined as not a drug, which is a lawcraft flex of natural rhetoric to avoid other obvious problems. • In this case, to allow ill-defined "sets of practitioners" to avoid a cult label, is a loophole that could debateably be used by some or many cults to decimate the list. For only one example, a doomed cult leader could insert into their organizational charter (or state-filed non-profit articles of incorporation to add legal force), 'This NRM organization, required by divine revelation to mass beg in public, control the minds of members, and commit mass suicide on the leader's command, is not a group, merely a set of practitioners.' Obviously, a clever cult leader would just write in that they weren't a group, they get off the list here, and other cult listees here get the article AfD'ed for being unfair. Rulecraft flexing of the definition of group to include "sets of practitioners" is the obvious, standard, and fair-minded solution. Milo 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I was referring to: A reference may include the name of the cult if that cult includes the word "cult". "Cult of Mary" simply does not refer to a set of practitioners. The solution I am suggesting is to make a list of definitions, and include this as an example of one of the definitions. Then it is "listed" in some sense, but at the same time given a context. Everyone wins. It is simply not a use of the word "cult" that involves groups; it's like having a list of "demanding people" and finding "surgery" on the list. But if you have a section explaining different meanings of "demanding" you can use surgery as an example for one of the unused definitions. Make sense? Gimmetrow 15:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I'll try. I see there are additional elements to your everybody wins idea, but I'll just address the first part. • I put on my rhetoritician's hat. I read the cultus article. If your #1 above is the cult definition at issue, already complete with example, I'm inferring that you're talking about "Cult of Mary" being adequately synonymous with "Care of Mary" - which is, yes, a set of religious technical practices. Then I put on my rulecrafter's hat. I think, persons must exist to do the practices of caring for Mary - are they not each a practitioner, and in plural, sets of practitioners, that can be rulecraft flexed into the locally defined meaning of groups?
- • If so, that rulecrafting gets rid of the loophole, allows any modern "Cult of Mary", like devotional Marian visionaries, to be listed with less wrangling, but it won't be fair to old Cult of Mary unless the 1920+ Rule is simultaneously consensed. Milo 08:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "Cult" in the sense of cultus does not refer to people, but practices. Yes, it takes people to do practices, but in this meaning the word "cult" does not transfer from the practice to the people. (This is why I have also objected to "cult of mary" as a reference for the practitioners as a cult.) It is a substantially different meaning of the word, which does not refer to people or groups. If we cannot understand the sense used by the reference, then we should acknowledge that this is nothing more than a list of phrases I can find with google that happen to contain the four letters "c-u-l-t" in sequence. (Personally I think this list should contain groups following defs #6,7,8,9 but I would hesitate to sort them into specific definitions.) Gimmetrow 19:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Maybe Gimmetrow's list of definitions should be a series of sub-headings for which inclusion would require support within the quoted source. cairoi 01:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "for which inclusion would require support within the quoted source" I think I need a one definition example of this. • "list of definitions should be a series of sub-headings" If I understand this part, the text display structure you are suggesting would be spread out over several screens. In the alternative, my idea was to briefly list the definitions, as Gimmetrow has done above, and make them hot links to jump somewhere else (like Cult) for the details. By putting the brief definitions all together like that, the reader is hopefully impressed with how many meanings of cult s/he didn't know existed, which goes to solving the 'each person just learns one definition' problem mentioned by OCRT. However, the brief hotlinks could jump to subheads down lower, if that's what's needed. Milo 08:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
this thread copied from Roman Catholicism
I pasted this thread here as it relates primarily to Definitions List Issues [Hroðulf, 2? August 2006]
This thread is not about the Definitions List - that's a different issue, but you were right about it being too wrongly topic'ed to find. However, we're short of kilobytes on this page, so I've deleted the copy, then renamed the original thread to "cult=sect? foreign/dialect issues", and moved it down lower in "First Draft Poll on Inclusion Criteria". Milo 23:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- That is good. Could do with some terminology disambiguation so newbies can join the conversation more easily. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sublist issues
I'm not at all happy about the idea of proliferating sub-lists based on different types of sources. News Media sources seem to kind of work, provided you qualify that the journalist is not redefining the word 'cult' to make a rhetorical point - all the other sources are too contentious. I don't think that creating false positives to improve the case for deletion is a good strategy. Since all the RfD votes have failed so far, I think it is time to try to make this list less of an embarrassment to an encyclopaedia.
By the way, it was very hard to find talk on the Rules for Inclusion (so I jumped the gun a couple of days ago.) As my penance, I have renamed this section of the Talk page. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- It would be nice if the new editors Hroðulf and BenC7 had made the effort to read the entire talk page before voting their misunderstandings. (cairoi, perhaps an instruction of reading the entire current talk page before voting should be added to the next draft poll?)
- Sublists are not based on different types of sources - all the sources are Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, contentious or not.
- Multiple Keyword sublists are proposed for fairness, so that, for example, begging cults who merely annoy travelers and get herded away by police can be distinguished from dangerous cults who kill, and so on. The single keyword and maybe its plural (cult OR cults) will remain in the baseline list as currently proposed.
- Multiple Sources sublists are proposed so that an NRM doesn't get unfairly labeled as a cult when the links to the sole reference partially break, as happened on June 28. Also, valid but one-off references like Christian Science go away. Both examples will remain in the baseline list as currently proposed.
- These are sublist rules for honorable editors, to which vandals pay no attention. Fortunately, vandalism is not a problem here; this article is usually watched like a hawk.
- There is no way to remedy the complaints of unfairness (e.g., recent Marian vision devotional cults listed next to Peoples Temple destructive cult) without sublists, and also, the foreign translation words meaning cult are unmanagable without them.
- In any case, the sublist adding proposals need to be rewritten based on comments already received.
- "journalist is not redefining the word 'cult'" Another misunderstanding that you could have avoided by reading the current talk page - any definition that the journalist chooses is accepted here, unless it's on the exclusion list (like fancults).
- I respectfully disagree with your characterization that this list is an "embarrassment to an encyclopaedia". One of the AfD debaters made an unrefuted claim that this is one the best referenced articles in Wikipedia. Furthermore, the editors have put in huge amounts of debate time to correct the deficiencies, with a lot of progress made. Please don't confuse an important yet very difficult reporting subject with an "embarrassment". Milo 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- To defend my "embarrassment" label - it was not aimed at the most hard-working editors. What I meant was that any list that people routinely add Sunni Shi'a and Roman Catholicism to is an embarrassment. I take those kind of additions as subtle form of vandalism, which I appreciate is not the normal Wiki definition of 'vandalism - I suppose I should really call it disruption. I choose to feel embarrassed, others certainly see it differently.
- Just because someone mentioned that 'any definition that the journalist chooses is accepted here' on the current talk page does not mean it is consensus. If it was consensus then it would be in the article lead section - which it isn't, or at least labelled as consensus in Talk. A reasonable person would take the article rules as excluding arbitrary redefinitions, and by that I do not mean a reasonable journalist using the word how he thinks he should. What I mean is a conscious redefinition of the word to make as a rhetorical device (writers do it all the time with all kinds of words - it is kind of neat but not interesting for an encycolpedia reader - I would contend.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- If you wish to change the critera which allow for the inclusion of Sunni ans Shi'a then please focus on the criteria review instead of just wingeing about it. I want it changed too but until then they should stay. cairoi 18:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "'any definition that the journalist chooses is accepted here' ... If it was consensus then it would be in the article lead section - which it isn't'" Though less than "any", that is covered in the article lead section by consensus of the exclusion list rule: "Not included in this list are..." - if it's not an excluded usage, it's accepted. I would say that arbitrary redefinitions are accepted, but that issue tends to be minimized by WP:RS since mainstream editors typically don't let reporters be published that way. An exception is when WP:RS sources quote an arbitrary redefinition, which may have happened in 1993 when a resigning chairperson called the Republican Party a cult, it was WP:RS reported by Playboy, and so got listed. • Trust me, huge proportions of U.S. encyclopedia readers are interested in that particular arbitrary redefinition of cult, as well as the surprising number of UK citizens who take a worried interest in USA elections. My objection is that such a redefinition doesn't pass the global citizens sniff test - whatever form or threat is the Republicans' religious fanaticism, it is something other than what global citizens consider a cult. • The good news is that the newly implemented 1920+ Rule will take Republicans off the list, along with the listings of major religions that caused you embarrassment, and caused me to become an editor when I was boggled by the baseline list inclusion of Baptists and Quakers. Milo 06:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Preamble issues
[Proposed Preamble] "This list is a bibliography of references to groups as cults according to the following rules. A group's inclusion in this list does not means that such group is a cult or imply any harmful or benificial qualities." This is rhetorically well-written by cairoi, that's not the problem. First, it's not clear to me how much of the existing seven paragraph introduction was intended to be replaced by this preamble. Second, it's asking for AfD buzzard trouble to make arbitrary wording changes in this environment without thinking it through and vetting it with some debate. Our fore-editors might have spent days debating these words. • For example, there's no obvious reason to change "index" to "bibliography" - I'm not sure that everything likely to be indexed is necessarily a bibliographic item by strict definition. By contrast, everyone seemed to accept "index" so why change it? • When rulecrafters like the editors here have so little power, better to reorganize the existing wording that readers are used to, and that critics perhaps grudgingly accept, then make selective wording changes that will solve the problems on the agenda. • Having said that, cairoi and Vasquero100 mentioned a "muffled" and unclear introduction. Along with formatting, cautious rhetorical improvements like cairoi's could be on the agenda to encourage people to finish reading before they start complaining. Milo 06:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] cult=sect? foreign/dialect issues (moved)
This change of topic thread continued from "Drop found?" within "Roman Catholicism"
-
- We haven't discussed the appropriate term for German. I have some concern even with UK use of "sect". Gimmetrow 15:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Pjacobi, Addhoc, and Gimmetrow have recently made points that convinced me that all foreign translations of "cult" should be removed from the baseline list, as otherwise it would become too difficult to manage when more languages are added. French made it already too difficult. I agree with Gimmetrow that the baseline list should become Anglocentric, but I also think it should become entirely Anglo (no French, Spanish, German, etc.). That rule change proposal hasn't been written yet.
- Furthermore I suggest that UK "sect" should also be removed from the baseline list. But, I don't know whether UK "sect" should be moved to a UK Sect Keyword sublist (also has to be a UK English site?). How difficult is it to prove that a WS:RS UK writer meant "cult" when he wrote "sect"?
- However, to save the foreign translation references, that I agree do have research value for an ongoing global issue, I suggest that editors support formal Foreign Keyword sublisting, of which the existing "Exclusive to the French Report" is a similar example. That rule change proposal also hasn't been written yet. Note that "First Draft Poll" #7 (Multiple Keyword sublists) doesn't work for foreign sublisting because it calls for the English "cult" as being at least one keyword. Milo 02:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This rule is both too inclusive and brings an Anglo-centric systemic bias. Nearly every faction, religious party and denomination is a 'sect' in British English, and even Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, and Brethren are 'sect' in Metropolitan France. Boldly, I suggest that keeping that criterion in there is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, as it gave some jokers an excuse to start a dispute by including two major parties of a major world religion, so I am removing it boldy. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Use of the phrase "Sunni sect" does not automatically infer that members of Sunni Islam have been referred to as cult members. However, I accept that if someone had written "Sunni Islam is a sect" that would be different. In this context, the article contains several false positives. Voting in order to push this article towards List of NRMs doesn't seem very good faith on my part and possibly would be a WP:Point violation. I am still not convinced Wikipedia requires an article that rests between Destructive cult and List of NRMs. Overall, I would probably still vote for deletion and redirecting to List of NRMs, although if this article is going to be revised and the problems resolved, then obviously I would be supportive. Addhoc 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
I am not sure if that was addressed at me Addhoc. My vote is definitely not to move it toward being another List of NRMs. I don't think "Her denomination is a sect" means in plain English that I think it is a cult, hence my earlier actions. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I fully support your removal of Sunni and Shi'a from the list. Sorry for any confusion. Addhoc 15:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- There can be no false posistives in this article as it has no targeted list of cults or sects. Sunni and Shia fit the current criteria and must stay until that criteria change. This list DOES NOT declare that all its members are small wierd religions. It collects specific examples of the use of the word cult and sect. You cannot say that just because a group does not conform to what you personally think of as a cult of sect that the criteria do not apply. I suggest engaging fully in the conversations on criteria reform rather than preemptive editing. cairoi 23:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The mischievous 'British English' criterion went a few days ago, Cairoi. The lack of comment since then suggests to me a temporary consensus (or truce). Also there was a clear consensus on 3 July that Sunni and Shi'a go, and removing the 'British English' criterion was the natural way to do it. I won't revert your edit, but I strongly disagree with your action to revert the two largest sects of Islam. I also strongly agree with Addhoc's comments above, except that I am even more strongly against the British English criterion than Addhoc. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- p.s. I already apologised for missing some of the criteria reform conversation. I am still sorry. I have voted in the latest straw poll, and I am addressing the wider issues
here at the bottom of the page. - p.p.s. bottom of the page is incorrect - this discussion is not about Roman Catholicisim. The Sunni bit might be easier to find under #Disputed - Sunni at the top, and the bit about criteria reform should be under #First Draft Poll on Inclusion Criteria. No wonder someone like me (a linear thinker and a newbie) gets confused about about which issues have gone quiet and which are still hot. I will copy this latest conversation to that part of the talk page. Feel free to delete it from Roman Catholicism.
Please do not respond to me down here :)--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thank you for bringing the change to my attention. I'm reviewing the logs to check the validity of the change. Are there any who would like to take the time to comment now on removing the British and French usage of sect? I'm not sure if merely waiting over a weekend is enough time for people to take in the impact of the words. cairoi 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
"The mischievous 'British English' criterion went a few days ago" Hm, seems to me that you (Hroðulf) boldly took it out while editors were still negotiating consensus on a new set of rules that were only in first draft. Bold is one thing, loose cannon is something beyond that.
- Sometimes Wiki consensus is achieved by editors just getting tired of doing reverts, so bold has its Wiki place. But we've all got other things to, and couple of days without comments doesn't seem like a certain consensus. I hope most NRMs believe in at least one day of rest.
- Bold aside, seems to me like Hroðulf is moving too fast and without reading article edit summaries and all of the admittedly somewhat scattered discussion threads. For possible example of not reading edit summaries, Hroðulf removed Christian Science based on his edit summary challenge, which I took up. Looks to me like that removal resulted from a reading error, since the cult reference is in the title line. Via dot dummy edit summary, I asked him to revert it himself, and he has not.
- Now Hroðulf says he's not going to be able to read this comment because it's "down here". Ok, it's not easy to be a good editor of this article. The newbie technical issue is that Hroðulf may not know how to use "diff" to read scattered new comments on the talk/discussion page. Perhaps someone can Wiki-technique educate him?
- I personally don't want to get rid of translations that really mean "cult", since this is a global issue, yet appropriate translation is its own issue. I propose that all secte/sekte/etcs should be moved to one or more foreign keyword sublist(s) because they are unmanageable in the baseline, but that's hung up by the anti-sublist folks who don't like that we already have sublists.
- British dialect "sect" may also be hard to manage, but until I see evidence otherwise, it too is a sublist candidate with adequate heading disclaimers.
- So, anti-sublister editors, which is better, no foreign or dialect cult translations of sect/secte/sekte at all, or grudgingly agree to sublist them? Milo 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Now I can read it, as can any other newbie - it is now under a relevant heading. At the weekend, even with extensive use of diff, history and google I clearly missed some strongly help opinions.
- Cairoi objected to my preemption of the Inclusion Criteria change. I had read the recent history and saw the British English as relatively non-controversial. Milo has said I misjudged the situation and I was unwise to talk and edit simultaneously, and that I was unwisely dismissive of Cairoi's complaint, and I think Milo is right. If you think it better for Wikipedia to revert the UK criterion, please do so.
- In British English 'sect' nearly always means A religious movement so a typical use is to describe any group that distiguishes themselves from or within a religious tradition. Think hard if that is what you really want. I don't.
- Some people want to turn the article into a linguistic research work product: a kind of list of all occurences of the words 'cult' and 'sect'. I think the British and French translations are an example of that - they are much broader than the common U.S. mass media usage of the word. If this happens, then in a reasonable world, the article will lose the next vote for deletion, as I think such an article will fall clearly within WP:NOT
- Milo asked "which is better" - exclusion or sub-listing? Both include far too much to have any meaning. Better than either (if you are still listening to a newbie) would be to only allow translations that translate to something like the third sense in wiktionary "A group that exploits members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders." (which doesn't make a judgement about whether it is a harmful cult.)
-
-
-
-
- "(if you are still listening to a newbie)" Well, not literally listening - not using a text-to-speech program - but yes, I'm reading. Reminds me of when one of my professors told our class on the first day that students would occasionally insert 'reading tests' into the required class papers. Like, "Are you really reading this?", which he assured us that he would be. :) Milo 08:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- The list cannot be a list of "Bad" cults any more than there can be a list of ugly people. It must be a list of references to cult/sect/secte/sekte (if we decide to include such sources). Focusing on the "broad" meaning of sect should not ignore the broad meaning of cult. Gimmetrow has included the following excellent definitions of the word cult.
-
-
-
-
- a system of practices in a technical sense (cultus), as "cult of Mary"
- things related to the worship of a deity, as "cult of Hera"
- fans of a celebrity, as the "fancult of Britney Spears"
- the intensity of those fans, as "a cult movie"
- a political support base, as "Salazar's cult" (just an example)
- a group in tension with its surrounding society (sociological) (avoids example...)
- an unorthodox or fringe Christian group (counter-cult)
- a group which outsiders view as mentally or financially exploitive (anti-cult)
- a self-destructive or suicide group (destructive cult)
-
-
-
-
- It pretty much covers the same kind of meanings as sect. Not exactly but very similar. We need to focus on how to accurately represent the usage of the word in the sources rather than simply painting all groups as:
-
-
-
-
- a group which outsiders view as mentally or financially exploitive (anti-cult)
- a self-destructive or suicide group (destructive cult)
-
-
-
-
- We already have precidents for excluding certain definitions:
-
-
-
-
- fans of a celebrity, as the "fancult of Britney Spears"
- the intensity of those fans, as "a cult movie"
- a political support base, as "Salazar's cult" (just an example)
-
-
-
-
- Perhaps we could remove some these technical definitions:
-
-
-
- And this definition is held by a non-neutral group:
-
-
-
-
- an unorthodox or fringe Christian group (counter-cult)
-
-
-
-
- This leaves two definitions which seem to be what every reader assumes we're talking about.
-
-
-
-
- a group which outsiders view as mentally or financially exploitive (anti-cult)
- a self-destructive or suicide group (destructive cult)
-
-
-
-
- That would be a list of "Bad" cults. Catch-22. Do any of you have any suggestions to fix this problem? Milo's 1920's rule would eliminate a lot of the problem.
- cairoi 14:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Hroðulf wrote:"third sense in wiktionary 'A group that exploits members psychologically and/or financially'" Financial exploitation does seem to cover the situation of requiring NRM members to mass beg in public, to the great annoyance of airport travelers several decades ago, sometimes followed by interactions with police and/or reporters. Seems to me that mass begging is one slightly infractious legal dividing line between devotional cults and exploitive or destructive cults, though there were plenty of exploitive cults that didn't beg. I'd guess the problem may be finding WP:RS foreign sources that use a complex concept like "exploitation" that is unambiguously translatable to English.
- However, that third sense Wiktionary definition may come close enough to describing the 'legal entanglements' keywords sublist I've previously suggested. I also think it would be more fruitful to search foreign sources for legal keywords meaning "police", "lawsuit", "government order", or "government/court fine or "jail/imprisonment", than for "exploitation".
- A legal keywords search might also overcome your concerns about lists of "bad cults". Here's why. The Wiki community doesn't want editors to seem to be making judgments of badness independently, but it's clearly ok to list destructive cults, because their badness has been judged by authorities. Likewise, reporting cults that have become legally entangled with police actions, administrative orders/sanctions, or civil suits, is not a badness judgment by Wiki editors.
- However, I don't see why a WP:RS source can't be listed as reporting cult "exploitation"? Maybe you can be more specific as to the appropriate Wiki guideline or AfD complaints? Milo 08:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] French Report Translation (moved)
I would suggest that if sect and secte are no longer acceptable words. That the French Report is no longer available for this list. The english translation may use the word "cult" but it is poor and put forward by what can hardly be called an acceptable source ( http://cftf.com/ ). BTW the French text is still available and it only uses secte. cairoi 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Didn't we just agree above, that
- Each reference to a group is to be followed by parentheses containing identification of the actual word used to refer to them as a cult or foreign translation meaning cult; like "(cult)", or "(secte)", or "(cult/secte/sekte/etc.)" for multiple references.
- Why are we now dropping "Secte/Sectes"? Why were the Exclusive Brethren, and the Westboro Baptist Church removed? -Will Beback 17:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Look, the reasonning and concensus for removing the foreign terms for cult clause were not clear to me either. That's why I'm brining this up. I will reinsert all the entries. I believe they should stay there until we've completely finished with the criteria review. cairoi 18:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I support the French Report in its present position as a type of sublist. It is precisely on topic of why citizens want their governments and media to report on cults. Cult references by global citizens are a compelling government issue, and are valid media reportage to include Wikipedia. • The French Report sublist intro does have one descriptive clause with two factual errors that need fixing, and it needs a disclaimer because of "secte" overlap with "denomination". The report itself otherwise speaks truth to the illusioned. (Some ISKCON? guru of the 1970's taught that illusioning is one of the defects of humankind - quoting Srimad Bhagavatam?) • See my other comments on keeping sect/secte/sekte/etc in subsection "cult=sect? foreign/dialect issues" above. Milo 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Christian Science
Milomedes wrote Hi Hroðulf, the first line of the Salon book review of Christian Science is titled "The respectable cult" - rv your own error edit please (dot dummy edit))
I prefer not to revert. It is clear to me that the article is not endorsing the book's use of the word 'cult' merely reporting it. If the mass media reports someone else's use of the word "cult" that cannot become a media report. Otherwise anyone can write a book with the word 'cult', and if the media happens to mention the book, it automatically gets into this list, and the the 'media and government' category becomas a catchall instead of a filter. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- "The respectable cult" is currently sufficient for inclusion. cairoi 14:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Cairoi is correct. A non-endorsing reference by WS:RS media to anyone's cult-labeling book is indeed valid.
I understand what you are saying, but the Wiki community has perceived your just-demonstrated style of editorial judgment as being a significant type of POV, and pressured the editors here to not do that. They want this list article to be more of a catchall as you describe it; a rather general list of pointers for researchers.
Another way of describing what the Wiki community wants, is for editors to make more judgments about large categories, and fewer judgments limited to individual cases.
Editors can and do consider individual cases of unfairness or inapproriateness (e.g., Lsjzl's WaPo issue of 28 June), but when they rulecraft a remedy, it should take as broad a form as reasonable (I propose two WS:RS sources as backup if one breaks). This is the normal pattern of supreme courts' decisions, for the same reasons of fairness.
A powerful tool to moot current, and prevent future intractable disputes, is WP:Avoidance. You wisely voted "Y" for proposal #5, the 1920+ Rule. If that is consensed, Sunni, Shia, Baptists, Quakers, and Catholics including old Cult of Mary, go away from the list, which you want for the first two at least.
As well, Christian Science and Thuggee go away. Christian Science sort of "graduated" after its decades of disputes with global citizens. Thuggee was extincted by the Brits in India by 1890, so they will probably not be noticed as missing here by researchers scanning for the next Jim Jones. Milo 09:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Cairoi is correct. A non-endorsing reference by WS:RS media to anyone's cult-labeling book is indeed valid.
-
-
-
-
- Conceded. Christian Science is back on the list, for now. While I think it pushes fair interpretation of the rule Groups referred to as "cult" in the media beyond breaking point, my opinion is probably trumped here by the need 'to make more judgements about large categories.' --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Removed sunni, shia from list of cults
- The two sources quoted called them "sects", not "cults"
- Although in some cases "sect" can be synonymous with cult, in this case it isn't, because few people would call sunni & shi'a cults People generally use the word "cult" to refer to relatively small groups -- calling Sunni & Shi'a cults is like saying that Catholic and Protestant are cults.
- I am especially worried by the Commonwealth office book from the 1950s. Obviously, both language use and attitudes were different in the 1950s than today. Mixing sources from the 1950s, with contemporary sources, without acknowledging the differences between them, is not a good idea.
--SJK 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I broadly agree with SJK, the word sect was used to imply denomination not cult, which is fairly clear from the sources. Addhoc 13:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- The rules still allow for the inclusion of Sunni and Shia. If you would like that changed then please join the above process for rules review. We're still working on the first draft. cairoi 14:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- If the reference said "Sunni Islam has sect-like tendencies" then I would agree the rules would still allow for the inclusion. However the rules don't say that usage of "sect" implying denomination should be interpreted as "cult". Addhoc 15:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The rules only exclude peronality and pop-culture cults/sects. They do not include any guidelines on sect. If you want this changed then please use your influence in the review process... cairoi 15:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Good point. I'm reverting that change. cairoi 18:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Cairoi is correct. It is the subject and current situation that are confusing. Milo 09:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Alcoholic's Anonymous
Cairoi - I explained my reason for deleting AA in the edit summary. Since you chose to revert, kindly do the same. For speed - here is what I wrote: "Chaz Bufe is a political scientist, not a sociologist; the Rutgers pieces only uses the word 'cult' to cite Bufe" You wrote " as per rules". Which rule? Why? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I too would like AA deleted, if for no other reason than the two sources. The heading says that these cults were called cults by media or government reports. Neither is true of Alcoholics Anonymous. In fact, the media and the government act very kindly to Alcoholics Anonymous. The government (state ... here at least) routinely sends people to AA from the court system, and the mainstream media is seldom has anything but nice things to say. If you're going to allow on this list things that the non-mainstream media calls cults, you might as well add the Teacher's Union because Rush said it was a terrorist organization. TheGunslinger 00:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- A currently deleted link is to Chaz Bufe's self-published book on the web.
- "Chaz Bufe is a political scientist, not a sociologist" I think cairoi is referring the WP:RS guide "rule" of "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise". It doesn't matter whether Bufe is/was formally a political scientist, as long as he has developed recognized expertise in the sociological subject matter. There are 371 references to the title of his book "Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure?" on the web. That's certainly an indicator of his being well-known. If you can find numerous complaints about the quality of his work, that would cast doubt on his expertise. I casually searched for "Bufe is" and found a claim that he is an idiot, is correct, is an ideologue, and also is not an ideologue. About what you'd expect to find describing a writer of controversial politics.
- Several search hits claim Bufe did not conclude AA was a cult. The question then becomes did Bufe quote others as claiming AA was a cult, and the answer is surely, yes (e.g., Alexander & Rollins, 1984; etc., see below). Bufe's book appears to be Google "site:{URL}" searchable if anyone wants proof.
- "the Rutgers pieces only uses the word 'cult' to cite Bufe" That would count because Rutger's (a university) is a Reliable Source, referring to a book. If Bufe was an unknown writer, the Rutger's citation alone would adequately validate the Bufe cult reference. The presumption is that Rutger's personnel (like NYT) wouldn't cite a book they suspected to be unreliable. ...BUT, Rutger's wrote Bufe "concludes that AA does not fit many of the characteristics he enumerates for such a cult." ...OTOH, Rutger's wrote 'Madsen's term (1979), at its foundation AA was indeed a "crisis cult".' So the Rutger's cult reference isn't to Bufe, rather it's to Madsen.
- The charge that AA is a cult is an old, well-explored one in Reliable Sources (Harper's Magazine, Oxford University Press, etc.), and even research-proved to match one list of cult characteristics. To help quell this ongoing teapot tempest over Bufe, I suggest adding this link prior to Bufe's and Rutger's:
- http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/a/aa/is_aa_cult.htm
- This is a history of the "AA as cult" claim, which includes apparently peer-reviewed research in "a decisive study published in California Sociologist” (Alexander, F., Rollins, R. (1984). “Alcoholics Anonymous: The Unseen Cult,” California Sociologist, Vol. 7, No. 1, Winter, page 32). The reason for linking this Freedomofmind.com web site is their formal list of references to research that is not on the web. (California Sociologist does not have a web site, see--> [1]) This is similar to linking to otherwise not-reliable Rick Ross because he has copies of Reliable Source articles. It would be nice to directly link to Freedomofmind.com's "NOTES AND REFERENCES", but that is not a linkable anchor point. Maybe this calls for a note pointing out the Reliable Sources.
- "The heading says that these cults were called cults by media or government reports" Ok, I think that AA should be listed under "Groups referred to as "cult" in sociological sources", but under current rules the link doesn't have to be an exact fit to the sublist heading. (Btw, sublist rules are still very much in development here.)
- "add the Teacher's Union because Rush said it was a terrorist organization." That statement self-referentially suggests that Rush is not a Reliable Source; but onward, there is a rule in development that would exclude the listing of terrorist organizations referred to as cults by any source. Search this talk page for the draft of it. Milo 08:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- A currently deleted link is to Chaz Bufe's self-published book on the web.
-
-
- What cult characteristics? Alcoholics Anonymous is estimated at a membership of 2 million people. That's rivaled by very very few other organizations, save perhaps US Government Employees and Freemasons. Despite this HUGE membership, it runs it's primary body on no more than roughly 7 million dollars a year. That means the "cult" of it is only getting $3.50 per person ... that's not very good!
-
-
-
- Here are some other non-cult characteristics of AA.
-
-
-
-
- It has no compulsory dues.
- It keeps no membership lists.
- A vast majority of it's meetings are open to the identified public. Those meetings that are not specifically open to the public can be attended anyway, it is simply asked that those who are not members not attend. However, they have no means or will by which to enforce this.
- The first level of paid employees are in New York. Infact, AA tradition makes a point of making many of them not "members of AA" per se.
- It has no investigatory, police, security, nor internal affairs arm. This is not an issue with a "Heaven's Gate" type cult. But for a supposed "cult" of 2M+ people, this would be necessary.
- It has no rites of initiation.
- It has no real membership requirement. Note: The "official" membership requirement is that one must "have a desire to stop drinking," this of course is not so much a real requirement, as it is not verifiable, and it is patently easy to falsify.
- It has no secret modes of identification.
- Both membership, and non-membership is self-professed without anything other than the profession of the member/non-member.
- An AA meeting itself has no authority of any other AA meeting. Nor to service bodies composed of members of many meetings have any authority of over meetings from which these service body was composed. No body really has much authority at all. Basically, what calls itself an AA meeting is more or less an AA meeting. If two Alcoholics who have "a desire to stop drinking" speak with each other on an airplane ... by a technical definition of the term, that too, would be an AA meeting.
-
-
-
-
- Show me a list of "cult characteristics" that can still make something a cult given these facts. Vanilla Christianity at large is very much similar to AA by it's defining characteristics. One could say that AA's claim to help people is no different than Christianity's claim to save people's souls. Both have books. However no one part of the body of Christianity can speak of it as a whole, and that too is true of AA. This in and of itself I believe prevents AA as a whole from being a cult. TheGunslinger 09:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You are right Gunslinger, in that Christianity is pretty much only excluded by the 1920 rule, as many denominations and forms of worship in Christianity have been called cults. Several major world religions were deleted from this list when the 1920 rule was added a few weeks ago. There is no consistent list of cult characteristics, so the definition is fairly arbitrary. Therefore the only excuse for this list to exist on Wikipedia (as opposed to some private cult-watching website) is that some reliable sources describe various phenomena as “cults”. There is a popular perception of a cult as “harmful”, but since no-one has defined “harmful”, we are no better off. Use of the word cult often gives offence, and one thing that this list demonstrates is that if your favorite group or practice is listed here, you are in good company. As Wikipedia editors we have been told in various 'Vote For Deletion' that we should not make our own judgements as to what is a cult, but merely rely on reliable sources.
- Today, I added AA back to the 'sociology' sub-list as Milo has given much better references than those that were originally there. Here is the source code of the updated entry:
- *[[Alcoholics Anonymous]], Communal/Institutional {{Sup-sources|Chafetz and Demone, 1962}}<ref>Chafetz, M. & Demone, H. (1962). Alcoholism and Society, New York: Oxford University Press, page 162, 165 as cited in Ragels, L. Allen "Is Alcoholics Anonymous a Cult? An Old Question Revisited" ''"We are struck by the sect or cult-like aspects of AA ... This is true in terms of its history, structure, and the charisma surrounding its leader, Bill W[ilson]"'' transcribed to http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/a/aa/is_aa_cult.htm and retrieved on August 23, 2006.</ref> {{Sup-sources|Alexander and Rollins, 1984)}}<ref>Alexander, F., Rollins, R. (1984). “Alcoholics Anonymous: The Unseen Cult,” California Sociologist, Vol. 7, No. 1, Winter, page 32 as cited in Ragels, L. Allen "Is Alcoholics Anonymous a Cult? An Old Question Revisited" ''“AA uses all the methods of brain washing, which are also the methods employed by cults ... It is our contention that AA is a cult.”'' transcribed to http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/a/aa/is_aa_cult.htm and retrieved on August 23, 2006.</ref>[http://www.morerevealed.com/books/coc/ {{Sup-sources|Chaz Bufe}}] [http://www.bks.no/alcoanon.pdf {{Sup-sources|Rutger's Centre of Alcohol Studies}}]
- --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Good editing work Hroðulf — those two notes are professional looking references to off-web Reliable Sources. The citation quotes immediately satisfy my top level questions as to how the authors could possibly think of AA as a cult (leader charisma and claimed member brainwashing). The links to the transcriptions make further research easier. Readers like Gunslinger still won't like that AA is listed at all, but at least they will immediately understand that this is a long-standing "cult" controversy, and not the whim of a few editors here. •
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "Show me a list of "cult characteristics" that can still make something a cult given these facts." Extending Hroðulf's explanation, that request is not part of a page editing debate about a whole class of organizations, such as the major religions that were until recently labeled as cults, but is a defense of AA in particular, and a debate challenge to Reliable Source authors (which editors here are usually not). The purpose of this article is to enable further research. For your own research, if you really want that list of "cult characteristics" which was scientifically correlated to AA practices, you could try requesting an interlibrary loan copy of the Alexander & Rollins article “Alcoholics Anonymous: The Unseen Cult,” in California Sociologist, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1984. Also, it's possible to likely that Chaz Bufe's book on the web summarizes the work of Alexander & Rollins to include that key cult characteristics list, which you may be able to find with Google site:{URL} searches, such as { Alexander brain OR brainwash }. Milo 02:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Dude if you are at all familiar with AA then you are probably familiar with the huge debate surrounding the claims of AA being a cult. It's an ongoing debate that will probably never end, as is the "cult status" (he he) of each other organization listed on this page. In fact, the "cult" debate surrounding AA is much more prominent in the public eye than just about any such debate with the other organizations here. I think NA should be added to this list also.
[edit] Propose we change now... (moved)
From the discussion, I am not aware of anyone who thinks making these changes would be a backwards step. Several persons consider these changes an improvement. I suggest we insert these changes now and fine tune them as required. Addhoc 15:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- secondedMight as well. That is, if anyone has time to go through all the references and see which ones survive, then install cairoi's new Inclusion Criteria. Work on the definitions list and making sub-lists more formal is probably a better idea. Perhaps it is also time to start discussing a fuller preamble about the list demonstrating the dangers of relying on the word 'cult'. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment listed by point:
- The first criteria seems vague and I'm not sure what it is meant to eliminate. Also I think that individuals would fit in better at Category:Cult leaders although inclusion may be necessary if there isn't a specific article about the cults adherants.
- This is an interesting rule because it raises the possibility that Wikipedia as a whole can be the source for determining whether an organization is a cult since presumably any reference would have met the Reputable sources criteria. I suggest changing 'name of the cult' to 'name of the organization or individual' because not all cases that the rules are applied to are cults. Also, a mention of whether Islamic sects and religious cults in the theological/Catholic sense can be included would be helpful.
- N/A
- I find the wording of this rule confusing and I don't know it's purpose, possibly because I haven't followed the ongoing criteria discussion closely.
- This seems like an important addition
- I'd suggest that enough of the quote be included to put the reference in context. Maybe they were saying 'this group is definitely not a cult' ;) Antonrojo 20:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for tuning in to the discussion Antonrojo. All contributions are appreciated. At this late time the points you have brought up can be a considered points for further debate. The rule change has been consensed, moved and seconded and I think it can be implemented even if it is phased in in the form that Milo has put forward below. Minor wording changes could be suggested and further dicussion could be pursued after that.
-
- Looking at some of your questions. I think you'll find the answers in above and in Archive 8. Looking over that information will help you come up to speed quickly. cairoi 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Change now procedural issues: (moved)
- 1st problem - Addhoc wanted some change implementation action, and I think the editors are very near implementation consensus on the 1920+ Rule. It actually should be implemented in priority, because it will set enforceable fairness boundaries for other rules that editors are debating (see my previous comments). • "fine tune them as required" I understand the sincerity of this proposal, but I suggest that type of experimental procedure in this mistrusting and competitive article environment, opens an unguarded door to both serious loopholes and/or paranoia of them. Experimental implementations can be useful when no one really knows what will work, but they typically need to be bounded with sunset provisions, and that's work.
- The 1920+ Rule is what I'll call first-pass consensed, meaning only a few people are holdouts and they holdout only on details. On the other hand, the other important rules aren't first-pass consensed yet. There are several that I'm not sure about - I want to see additional draft rewrites - and I'm guessing other editors feel the same about seeing additional drafts for other rule proposals.
- Point is, if others agree, I consense toward implementing one rule now, not a whole slew of them that are still half baked.
- I suggest that the way toward implementing this one rule now, is to post a 1920+ Rule second-pass consensus section. Focus a debate on Will Beback's start date issue with the 1920+ Rule, and see if he can either come into the general consensus, or at least if he will agree to stand aside and not revert.
- 2nd problem - Antonrojo is starting up another several-rules debate front inside of a change-now debate. • Also, in an eyebrow-raising self-reference to his point #6, without proposal quotes it's an effort to figure out which proposals he is commenting only by number (it's a split-browser-screen task for me). I'm thinking about refactor-moving it to another section before it gets worse, but that's more work. • The actual content of his comments are evidence of the 1st problem - that the other rules are not yet first-pass consensed, and certainly not ready to be implemented. Milo 22:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Seeing as the motion was moved and seconded I've implemented the solidly worded 1920's rule so editing can begin. Any minor wording changes to the other consensed rules can still be made in the Second draft section. cairoi 00:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Items removed under 1920+ rule
This rule was introduced to the article on Aug 6 2006 by cairoi after a broad debate, followed by 2 polls (the first poll held on on July 28.) Only one objection to the rule was posted in the poll - asking for an earlier date.
To simplify future discussion, I am pasting the groups referred to as cults that I removed from the article under the 1920+ rule. Feel free to do the same:
- Jehovah's Witnesses(Guardian) (BBC) (founded in 1872 [2])
- Exclusive Brethren (BBC) (Guardian) (founded in the 1840s [3])
- Christian Science(Salon) (founded in 1879 [4])
[edit] Definition poll
One of the reoccurring conversations on this discussion page is about "what it means to be a listed as a cult on this page." it might be helpful to reexamine our consensus on this matter. Of the following definitions put forward by Gimmetrow, which ones should be used on this list? (I'm hoping people will put their Y's or N's below each option) [cairoi 15:16, 3 August 2006]
A draft poll on Gimmetrow's list of definitions is ok, but to avoid suspicion or reality of POV, I suggest the actual wordings listed in the article should be those of definitions found elsewhere, such as M-W.com, or at least Cult, to which these brief definitions could be hotlinked. Milo 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. I think I can fit the results of this poll into the m-w.com definitions. cairoi 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1. a system of practices in a technical sense (cultus), as "cult of Mary"
Y cairoi 15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N Addhoc 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N Mary's own pages are sufficient --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Y (because it's an unfairness loophole otherwise) Milo 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2. things related to the worship of a deity, as "cult of Hera"
Y cairoi 15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N Addhoc 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N This is fine on the deity's own page --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Y (Thuggee worshipped Kali) Milo 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3. fans of a celebrity, as the "fancult of Britney Spears"
N cairoi 15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N Addhoc 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N not very interesting or informative --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N Milo 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
4. the intensity of those fans, as "a cult movie"
N cairoi 15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
NAddhoc 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N not very interesting or informative --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N Milo 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
5. a political support base, as "Salazar's cult" (just an example)
Y N as per Will Beback cairoi 15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N Addhoc 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N I think most people here are interested in religion not politics --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
? (Will's correct. Also bias against religion. But rework this def.) Milo 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this point - there are non-religious cults, some quasi-political or medical, such as the LaRouche Movement or Synanon. -Will Beback 19:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sources for Synanon and LaRouche suggest they are destructive, so rejecting this definition doesn't exclude them. I don't think it is helpful to include every radical commune and every quack cure in the list. (Is Salazar fictional?) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The global citizens' frequent complaint is mind-control, whether religious or political. Most quackery is just focused on the expensive cure. Cultism usually adds the elements of a charismatic leader and spiral-eyed followers. Milo 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
6. a group in tension with its surrounding society (sociological) (avoids example...)
Y cairoi 15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N Addhoc 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N This could be any kind of counter-culture group. Probably not interesting to most encyclopedia readers. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
? (Seen this core idea done better; def needs rework) Milo 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
7. an unorthodox or fringe group (counter-cult)
N (This just means heretic) cairoi 15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Y Unless the same goes for denominations of other major world religions. Addhoc 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N This is everyone whose ideas aren't mainstream. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
N (but rework to replace "Christian" with "religious") Milo 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Still "N" with word "Christian" struck, but "religious" not inserted - this def doesn't seem to pass my "global citizens cult sniff test". Lots of unorthodox or fringe groups invesitgate UFOs, and some/many of them are centered around a charismatic leader, often an attractive woman. Attendees I've seen include the curious, the seekers, and the kooky (implantees and abductees). But only a few of these UFO groups have ever evolved toward some kind of cult label, possibly because they became financially or mentally exploitive. (Btw, I don't know what the "counter-cult" part means.) Milo 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
8. a group which outsiders view as mentally or financially exploitive (anti-cult)
Y cairoi 15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Y Should have a reliable source though. Addhoc 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Y (the French Report explains the government's compelling interest) Milo 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Y Since this article isn't going to be deleted any time soon, I will grudgingly accept this and no.9. Should be a reliable source and a reputable cult-watching group. It is using other peoples lists rather than researching Wikipedias's own novel list. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to N - I have just read www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm and www.religioustolerance.org/acm1.htm, so I see now how hard it will be to identify a reputable cult watch list - I suppose that is what I get for coming late to the party. However, any other source, even if WP:Reliable sources, would be just hearsay, as most religious (and political) movements will be seen as mentally or financially exploitative by at least one outsider. I don't see how this list can save anyone's life. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's why this list must be a list of HOW the word is used and and not a list which labels small, evil groups. Whould you then reconsider accepting some of the more technical definitions above? cairoi 21:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have reconsidered, cairoi, and my answer is still no. Here's why - all the more technical definitions above include putting a piece of linguistic reporting into the article. In other words, they involve using the cited works as primary sources. So, the only definition I am now able to support (since page deletion is not happening) is destructive cult. Yes - it is true that destructive usually only becomes verifiable after some destruction has taken place, but tweaking the rules in a way that includes mostly non-destructive cults isn't going to save any lives (if the mission of Wikipedia were to save lives.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- For one of the sublists, I have proposed a legal entanglements standard - a WS:RS report of groups referred to as cults, which have also become legally entangled with police actions, administrative orders/sanctions, or civil suits. There's no linguistic reporting about this objective standard other than the cult word itself. • Also, global citizens and governments believe (correctly or not) that progression toward cult destructiveness can begin with scofflaw infractions, which justifies proportional police cultwatching. That's the way they think it is, and it's objectively valid police-legal journalism in Wikipedia. Milo 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
9. a self-destructive or suicide group (destructive cult)
Y cairoi 15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Y Should also include groups such as Aum Shinrikyo that were destructive, if not self-destructive. Addhoc 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Y But then the page name would have to change :) This should be quite easy to verify. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Y (but rework the def for both) Milo 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Many groups, such as the Manson Family or Synanon, sought to harm others rather than themselves. -Will Beback 19:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Destructive cult article includes groups that sough to harm others rather than themselves. However, they could be listed separately. Addhoc 19:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Cult suicide deals with self-destructive groups and other groups merely accused of being self-destructive.--T. Anthony 07:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hrothulf, I agree with your assessment this page should be deleted or if not, then improved. In your opinion, should groups such as Jehovah's Witness not be included, while including groups such as ISKCON? This could be perceived as bias towards Christianity. Addhoc 17:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- This list is not going to escape a european biases. The cult labelling seems a preoccupation of Christian type countries. cairoi 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree. However, the 1920+ Rule at least makes the bias toward newness. That view is consistent with the governments' compelling legal interests, global citizens' views, and certainly do include non-Christian Japanese citizens' view of Aum Shinrikyo. Milo 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Either all denominations of major world religions should have a get out of jail free card or none. Giving Christian, but not Muslim or Hindu groups this privilege is not appropriate. Wikipedia articles should attempt to be unbiassed. Addhoc 19:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The proposed 1920+ Rule makes all major religions go away from the list. IIRC, Jehovah's Witnesses, go away too. Milo 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Addhoc, could you explain more about how you distinguish "groups such as ISKCON" from "groups such as Jehovah's Witness"? Do you see a bias in the proposed rule changes? I agree with Cairoi that there is an inherent bias against activities in the West, but I have no opinion on whether the proposed rule changes will tweak that bias. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I prefer the approach taken at List of Religions, where ISKCON is considered to be a denomination of Hinduism and Jehovah's Witnesses are considerd to be a denomination of Christianity. Groups that are not considered denominations, that have small followings and were founded since 1850 are considered NRMs. Addhoc 12:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Makes sense, Addhoc. However the current wave of regulations being designed for this list will include or exclude each of those two groups on their own merits. However, the accident of birth of ISKCON in the 1960s versus JW in the 1800s means there may be circumstances where one is in and the other is out. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yes, however the changes represent a significant step forwards. When are they going to be introduced? Addhoc 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The article is temporarily protected by the last AfD, so the article needs to be NPOV bulletproof (oink,flap) by the "deadline" of when the next flock of AfD buzzards descend (hehe, present company excepted). Didn't some editor mention a 4-6 month AfD rhythm?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- However, a caution on rushing changes before interlocking major issues are consensed. For example, closing the "technical practices", and "sets of practitioners" loopholes, critically depends on adopting the 1920+ Rule to moot unfairness to old "cult of Mary". Will Beback and another intermittent editor seem to be the only holdouts on the 1920+ Rule; even they only question the date by 12 years, not the principle of excluding major religions and previous century NRMs from the current references list.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If everyone feels that some serious change needs to be done now, I'd consense the 1920+ Rule as being the best one to push.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There still needs to be a major discussion on formalising the creation of sublists that the article clearly already has. IMHO, the article can't work without them, the French Report being only one example. Milo 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Second Draft Inclusion Criteria
cairoi 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, consensus is achieved in Wikipedia not by 100% agreement but not by a 51% majority either. We were able to achieve consensus on the following rules. If anyone would like to propose wording changes for any of the rules you could do it below:
-
- The level of consensus required in practice could be described as achieving a balance of action with apathy. • While unanimity is frequently unachievable, a reasonable attempt to achieve it lets holdout editors make points for later 'I told you so's, and future AfD grudge debates. Having made those points for the record, holdouts will frequently stand aside and not revert, either to avoid an edit war with possible Arbcom consequences, or at least because bitter-end reverting takes more time and work than they have available. Milo 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- [0. Preamble:] This list is a bibliography of references to groups as cults according to the following rules. A group's inclusion in this list does not mean that such group is a cult or imply any harmful or beneficial qualities.
OLD "This list indexes a diverse set of groups and organizations indicated in the popular press and elsewhere as a "cult" or a "sect"."
COMMENT: A problem of principle is that the current research purpose of the list is not immediately stated. This can cause immediate misunderstandings and suspicions by readers who may then stop reading and complain about things that are not valid issues. • Wording should be debated from principle or at least remain very similar to current version. For example, why change "indexes" to "bibliography"? Milo 05:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- 1. Organisations and sets of individual practitioners qualify as groups.
COMMENT: Simplifies wording. I futher suggest change to:
- "Organisations, and sets of individual practitioners, including their named technical practices of cultus, qualify as groups." Milo 05:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- 2. The groups must be referenced as a "cult", "sect" or equivalent foreign language word directly by sources that qualify according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The name of the cult qualifies as a reference if that cult includes the word "cult" or equivalent foreign language word.
COMMENT: If all equivalent foreign language words are to become eligible, the word "sect" should be struck as superfluous. If it somehow really needs to be mentioned, put it in a supporting example. Milo 05:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- 3. The groups must be referenced as a "cult" since 1956.
OLD 3. "within the last 50 years"
COMMENT: This change doesn't work - a 50-year sliding window of time has been changed to a fixed date. For example, ISKON is now permanently defined in the cult reference zone when they would have "graduated" in a some decades as cult references gradually became more scarce. Milo 05:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- 4. The groups referenced as cults must not have been named by Reliable Sources to independently exist prior to 1920 in their substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices.
COMMENT: Wikifies "Reliable Sources" to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|Reliable Sources]] Changes work ok. Note that the article currently doesn't capitalize "reliable sources", and I agree it should be caps to make it clear that a particular named Wiki guideline is being cited. Milo 05:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- 5. Not included in this list are personality cults (heads of state, governments, and media celebrities of popular culture) and groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups).
COMMENT: Makes "governments" plural. Changes work, but needs more. Suggest adding "fancults or personality cults". Note "government(s)" includes "heads of state", so "heads of state" should be struck as superfluous. Also I think "governments" should become "officials of governments". Further, I suggest adding this clause:
- "If a reference to a media celebrity group claims its other cult activities are more significant than its popular culture fancult activities, it becomes listable. Groups specifically named as terrorist organizations by a majority of sovereign governments are not listable as cults."
- Milo 05:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- 6. Each reference to a group is to be followed by parentheses containing identification of the actual word used to refer to them as a cult or foreign translation meaning cult; like "(cult)", or "(secte)", or "(cult/secte/sekte/etc.)" for multiple references.
COMMENT: I suggest an exception is needed for lists in which every line contains the same reference word, such as the current baseline list. This change also allows listing of other kinds of search keywords. Remove quotes and "etc" to reduce confusion of whether to insert them. Suggest change to:
- "In lists where the reference keywords may vary, each reference to a group is followed by parentheses containing the actual word(s) referring to them; formatted like (cult), or (secte), or (cult/secte/sekte) for multiple references."
- Milo 05:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 2nd round rules questions
(insert here if needed)
[edit] 1st round rules questions
The following questions arose pertaining to the above rules. How do you all feel about them? (I'm hoping you'll put your Y's and N's below):
1. Should the proposed preamble replace or meld with the current pramble? (that is only the sentence preceding the rules)
- Y cairoi 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y replace - not meld. It is clearer IMHO --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y/N?? Meld. Milo 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- More important than replace or meld, the preamble is being treated as just another rule, when it's not. It creates the philosophical context for the entire document, and it should have its own separate debate. Every word carries greater weight in a preamble. As an example of preamble influence, fiscal conservatives loathe Welfare as a redistribution of wealth, but it's a philosophical principle embedded at word 29 in the preamble to the USA Constitution. So it's unconstitutional to substantially eliminate all welfare programs as they want to do, yet also charged to be an unpatrotic political attack on the Principles of the USA Founding Fathers if they try to amend the Preamble. Milo 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Should the proposed preamble replace the word "index" with the word "bibliography"?
- Y cairoi 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y even though it weakens my case for NOR. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- N because don't fix what ain't broken. Milo 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Clever cult leaders could parse through definition lists and claim, 'No fair - the reference is on a record, so it's a "discography"; it's in a film, so it's a "filmography"'; it wasn't located in a library, (etc)'. But, that said, how does using "index" make a case for violation of NOR? Milo 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Five years was proposed instead of 50 for acceptable cult references. Could we nominate our preferred dates a date for acceptable references?
- Y I'd like to see 1990 as gut feeling but will be happy if everyone leave the status quo cairoi 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y I will go for 1990 --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y 50 years allows sources I would consider way out of date (though I can live with it since it maintains status quo), but 5 years is far too short. 1990 seems kind of arbitrary, but I would be willing to live with it. Monger 22:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Y/N?? Keep 50 years.
- Lots of reasons to keep 50 years, including that editors are asking for a big talk page fight if this delicate status quo truce is messed with. Milo 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
5. 1920 is proposed as the acceptable conception date for groups on the list. Should we look at a different date?
- N 1920 seems reasonable to me for the reasoning put forward by Milo cairoi 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- N any date has a possibility of bias against non-Christian sects as Addhoc suggested, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Excluding the ecclesiastical definition (in the manner the rules exclude fan cults) would IMHO be a much cleaner way of excluding 'cult of Mary' 'cult of Saint Christopher'.... However, 1920 is defensible as a way identifying groups that have become established parts of world culture. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- N As per reasoning presented by Milo. Monger 22:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- N Milo 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note to Hroðulf: Per your article edit summary research request, the USA Republican Party cult reference looks like solid WP:RS. If implementing the 1920+ Rule, they will be excluded. I'm guessing they would not be excluded under the ecclesiastical definition (don't remember it), since they don't seem to qualify as a religion. Milo 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Psychology?
Please. That's not even a concrete organization. It shouldn't be on a list of specific groups that are regarded by mainstream society as a "cult". [ 64.81.227.133 11:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC) [5] ]
-
- Psychology of the self (Jungian) --> "Paul Vitz delivers a trenchant analysis of modern psychology -- an enterprise he maintains has become a religion, a secular cult of self...".
- This is one of the cults with sets of individual practitioners. First Draft Poll on Inclusion Criteria was 5 to 1 in rule favor of "sets of individual practitioners" ... "qualify as groups". • In this case, I think the claim is that one might become cult-like brainwashed without ever joining anything or attending a group meeting. This reference is to Jung, but one can understand the potential truth of this claim after reading Jeffrey Masson's anti-Freud-schooling writings. In becoming a Freudian therapist one essentially volunteers to be brainwashed. Milo 05:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looking closer at the references, this seems to be two different cults having an element of Jung in common:
- Selfism psychology (Jung, Fromm, Rogers, Maslow, May) (Psychology As Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship; Paul C Vitz, NYU)
- Jung Cult (Jungian psychology) (American Historical Review)
- I've moved these to the previously empty sublist "Groups referred to as "cult" in psychology sources". The list article visually looks better for having items in that sublist. • The first item is clearly "sets of individual practitioners" and a belief system related to the work of five psychologists. The second item appears to be a more conventional charismatic personality cult focused on Dr. Jung, yet an informal cult, so probably "sets of individual practitioners". • There are 762 Google references to "The Jung Cult" by Dr. Richard Noll, clinical psychologist and associate professor in the department of social sciences at DeSales University. • There are 606 Google references to "Psychology As Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship" by Paul C Vitz, head of Psychology at NYU. Both books seem to be Reliable Sources. • The American Historical Review is a subscription site that provides only the title. Amazon.com provides reviews that better outline the cult reference:
- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684834235/002-7687651-2991226
- Next link searches inside the book for "cult" (long load).
- http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0684834235/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop/002-7687651-2991226?v=search-inside&keywords=cult&go.x=15&go.y=11
- Milo 01:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia, Mary Kay, as cults
Wikipedia is listed as a cult. Mary Kay Cosmetics is listed as a cult.
I'm a noob here. So, can someone please edit this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AETiglathPZ (talk • contribs) 19:21, August 24, 2006.
- Hi AETiglathPZ,
- I infer that you think the Wikipedia and Mary Kay entries are listed in error. The sources read as follows:
- Guardian Unlimited Technology - Charles Arthur
- The Guardian - December 15, 2005
- "Wikipedia, and so many other online activities, show all the outward characteristics of a cult. ... There is a quasi-religious fervour surrounding the 'rightness' of Wikipedia..."[6]
- The Cult of Mary Kay Extends to China <--(reference is in the article title)
- Asian Pacific Post - December 22, 2005
- (First portion of the article is quoted by Brandnoise web site) [7]
- These listings appear to meet the rules stated in the article introduction. If mainstream media like Guardian and APA refer to a group as a cult, and they are referring to more than a merely popular or fashionable fancult, then the listing is valid.
- Is Wikipedia really a cult? Interesting that I can't find a Wikipedia Cult or Cult of Wikipedia page (at this writing both links are red). But read Cult and essays at OCRT to see how Wikipedia compares. There does seem to be an implied Wikipedia belief system which promotes the proselytization of knowing, there are charismatic leaders at the top (who are also physically attractive), there are administrative computing powers (page locks, user bans, etc.) reserved to a "priesthood" hierarchy, Wikipedia regularly (mass?) begs for large sums of money, there are most certainly powerful group pressures, high priority is placed on group-think consensus, group disapproval is a concern because no one wants to be IP-banned or have their editing contributions AfD'ed, and editors are financially exploited for their free labor time. • OTOH, no one (yet) seems to have claimed that Wikipedia is a bad cult. Between 3,000 and 5,000 purported cults existed in the United States in 1995, few of which the public has ever heard of. (See Prevalence of purported cults.) This implies that most cults are not bad. It seems to come down to whether the social contract that a member makes with a particular cult has benefits worth whatever one gives or gives up in order to join. A government like France gets involved (see the French Report) when the cult-joining deal amounts to an unconscionable contract. • At least Wikipedia doesn't make editors wear funny clothes — or any clothes at all. :) Milo 02:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wiki must be a cult. I have found myself extolling its virtues. I stay up late at night editing it. Stop me before I edit again.LorenzoB 08:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Global citizens, cult watch, AfD birds (moved)
[Snip of other "Promoting Consensed Rules", "Comments" issues] I noticed that after the 1920+ rule was implemented, the AfD buzzard flock seemed to stop circling — but maybe they are just on summer vacation. • The whole list now looks a lot more like what global citizens and Wikipedians expect to see, with a number of educationally tasty surprises as OCRT has recommended. For example, I never knew that there was any long-standing cult controversy about AA, but it makes sense if you work through the logic. Furthermore, the AA and Wikipedia entries are good for the list, because they tend to prove that "good" cults exist, and that List of groups referred to as cults is not now a list of "bad" cults as some previous AfDer's had charged. It is merely a tiny sample of perhaps mostly good cults (3,000 to 5,000 USA total, 1995) that have come to public attention. Milo 20:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- "the AfD buzzard flock seemed to stop circling — but maybe they are just on summer vacation." Oh. Good to know. I thought we couldn't make such aspersions towards other editors. Since I rewrote the opening several lines and reframed this article, I have less issues with this page. The inconvienent truth of "This is a cult watch list indexing.." was rejected, but in total the page is more straight forward now. It denies the obvious less and pretends less than it did before. I can assume that the Mr Milo's "Global Citizens" will be able to see the small-minded nature of this list a little more clearly now. Jiva Goswami 04:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- "Global Citizens" will be able to see the small-minded nature of this list a little more clearly now" Interesting that I have the inverse view: that the Global Citizens are a narrow-minded majority, and that this list is more open-minded than they are, being somewhat less of a cult-watch than the French police are now apparently maintaining.
-
- "AfD buzzard flock seemed to stop circling" ... "aspersions" Thanks for drawing attention to my creative writing; I thought you'd never ask. :) However, this metaphor is but a variation on a USA idiom. Saying "The buzzards are circling this project," is a fairly common way of saying, "There are rumors spreading that this project will be canceled."
- (1) I implied no aspersions — perhaps you are inferring them where none exist. If so, tsk, tsk, "Assume good will."
- (2) There's no aspersion in this literary metaphor's plain text interpretation, it's just describing the neutral facts. "AfD buzzard flock ... circling" is a description meaning 'an unnamed and variable group of editors waiting at some observing distance for (and occasionally helping) the list to die by AfD — so they can take credit, or just satisfaction, for helping to 'del—eat' it.' (All may now liturgically groan in unison, hehe.)
- (3) Perhaps you misunderstand the metaphor. This is a metaphor of group dynamics, not motive. After all, AfD is something editors including me do. I haven't yet joined a flock of AfD buzzards, but maybe I will eventually do so.
- (4) Perhaps you misunderstand buzzards. Buzzards and their kin are nonaggressive good birds who are ecologically vital to cleaning the environment (find "pandemic" in following reference). Unlike the editors, buzzards do not attack that which lives (inclusive here of so-called "living documents").
- (5) Perhaps you would prefer AfD buzzards to be known as AfD vultures. Now the metaphor compares editors to birds sacred to the Zoroastrian Parsi of India, and is thus a metaphorical connection with uncommon religion like the list itself. • Unfortunately, the ancient Parsi tradition of vulture "sky burials" have ceased in India following a 90% crash of the vulture population due to widespread use of a cattle veterinary drug. See that story at Diclofenac#Ecological problems. Milo 10:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
"The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48" Buzzard \Buz"zard\, a.
- Senseless; stupid. [R. & Obs.] --Milton.
- [1913 Webster]
Buzzard \Buz"zard\ (b[u^]z"z[~e]rd), n.[O.E. busard, bosard, F. busard, fr. buse, L. buteo, a kind of falcon or hawk.]
- [1913 Webster]
- 1. (Zool.) ...
- 2. A blockhead; a dunce.
- [1913 Webster]
-
- It is common, to a proverb, to call one who can not
- be taught, or who continues obstinately ignorant, a
- buzzard. --Goldsmith.
Sophist \Soph"ist\, n. [F. sophiste, L. sophistes, fr. Gr. ?. See Sophism.]
- 1. One of a class of men who taught eloquence, philosophy,
- and politics in ancient Greece; especially, one of those
- who, by their fallacious but plausible reasoning, puzzled
- inquirers after truth, weakened the faith of the people,
- and drew upon themselves general hatred and contempt.
- [1913 Webster]
[ JivaGoswami 9:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC) [8] ]
- Ok, as frequently happens in cross-cultural communication, we both have a reasonable view. Both "buzzard" and "vulture" at M-W.com have each retained one of those nearly obsolete Victorian definitions from 1913. I don't write in Victorian English, but I also take your point and don't want to be misunderstood. • I want to metaphorically reference group behaviors of birds to include circling — Buteos are hawks, and hawks are more generally are known for eating live prey (like editors del-eating living documents) — so I'll try out "the AfD hawks are circling this list". • Sophistry? No, that's an illusion. Sophistry could easily be skewered by the learned AfD hawks. But thanks for the unintended rhetorical polish compliment. Milo 22:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question "Eschatology (cult)" (moved)
Is it OK with policy to label a cult a “cult” in Wikipedia? Perhaps you may want to take a look at the ongoing discussion in Eschatology (cult)? —Cesar Tort 16:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Probably not in the title, but you can report or quote any Reliable Sources that called them a cult, in the article and the external links. Milo 18:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Promoting Consensed Rules
We are receiving some questions about rules which we have consensed but not promoted to the article until the wording is perfect. I'm hoping that people will adjust the following wording in place and then move to promote the rules as quickly as possible even if they're not perfect but not before major errors are removed. We can adjust wording as required in the live version.
Inclusion is based on a single reference:
- as a "cult"
directlyin North American English using any non-excluded Reliable Source definition; as a "sect" in British English only if contextually intended to mean "cult"; or, as anyequivalentforeign language word or phrase with a plain text translation and contextual intention to mean "cult"; - as a group in that organisations and sets of individual practitioners, including those referenced or named by their technical practice of cult (cultus), qualify as groups.
- as such within the last 50 years;
- as not named by reliable sources to independently exist prior to 1920 in their substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices;
- as not qualifying as a personality cult (artistic, celebrity or political fan-cult), or a group that doesn't have an actual following (fictional or self-nominated group). If a reference claims that a personality group's other cult activities are more significant than its fan-cult, it becomes listable.
Groups specifically named as terrorist organizations by a majority of sovereign governments are not listable. In lists where the reference keywords may vary, each reference to a group is followed by parentheses containing the actual word(s) referring to them; formatted like (cult), or (secte), or (cult/secte/sekte) for multiple references.
I've left out the preamble as it is worth being very precise with this as it sets the emotional tone for the article. cairoi 18:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- In-place draft edits by Milo 00:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- reworked to fit the existing wording including Milo's edits. But I'm not sure that we've agreed to the terrorist phrasing in 5. And I'm not sure that 6 needs to be a rule. It could just be a practice. cairoi 14:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- See followup comments below. Milo 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- reworked to fit the existing wording including Milo's edits. But I'm not sure that we've agreed to the terrorist phrasing in 5. And I'm not sure that 6 needs to be a rule. It could just be a practice. cairoi 14:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- • "As" format rhetorical contortions — see comment below.
- • What about spelling "organisations" as "organizations" using North American English which is the declared focus of "cult"? Milo 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
If speed really is the priority, then working first on the draft rules with the most existing consensus makes sense, such as the 50 year rule. Another approach would be to first work on the rule(s) most needed, which right now would be the Sets&Cultus=Groups rule. • Is there a rush, as distinguished from keeping the process in motion? [snip moved to "Global citizens, cult watch, AfD birds"] Milo 20:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[Remainder of "Global citizens, cult watch, AfD birds" side debate moved up]
- You might have noticed the changes are live now. There doesn't seem to be as much appetite for debate and I'm not feeling the same atmospheric tention about editing the rules as pre-1920's exclusion days. Perhaps people can make adjustments to the wording and grammar in live like pretty much any other wiki-article just so long as major changes in direction do not result. Personally I'm content to leave the rules as they are and watch how the list shapes up. Milo, you might want to promote some of your excellent wording choices. cairoi 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- The preamble isn't consensed. IMHO, the list's further research purpose should be in it. Milo 08:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Excluding terrorist cults
"not sure that we've agreed to the terrorist phrasing in 5" Ok, here's a debate statement. • TheGunslinger brought this up, on this page 00:14, 23 August 2006 in section Alcoholic's Anonymous. There are 19,000 references to "terrorist cult" on the web, and seven in Wikipedia. Take a look. Some of them are the usual Aum Shinrikyo references. Many others are references to Al-Qaeda and their kin. The problem is that some known terrorist organizations have just enough cult characteristics to be technically listable, but they are religious in about the same sense that "Christian gunmen" were during the Lebanese civil war. On balance, they are more about guns and revolution than charismatic leadership and God. IMHO, it's a practical page politics and war propaganda tar pit to be avoided. Nonetheless, a few "terrorist cults" not (yet) listed by governments may deserve listing here. • There's a counter question: would the known destructive cult Aum Shinrikyo, be removed from this list if this subrule were adopted? And, since Aum Shinrikyo is no longer known by that name, would that be ok anyway? Milo 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure being religious was a prerequisite for inclusion. Neither AA nor Wikipedia are religious. You mentioned Aum Shinrikyo and Al Qaeda -- I am ambivalent about including Al Qaeda as a cult. Just because an Sarisan enemy of the Frankish West has a strong belief in what they're doing doesn't mean that they must be a cult and not principally a military player. And yet modern militaries contain many cult like charactaristics like brainwashing, recruiting and amazing control over members' lives. This is an area that I do not understand and don't know if the list needs to be pushed one way or the other. cairoi 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Parenthetical (cult/secte/sekte)
"not sure that 6 needs to be a rule. It could just be a practice" I agree, but how to make a practice stick if it isn't a rule? Maybe there should be a section of practices for storing things like this. • IIRC, the lack of this practice was causing casual reader confusion and some contention in the sect and secte debates. Now that the French Report has its own sublist, there's less of a problem, but it's still an issue with UK "sect", and, according to other editors, will become even more so when the German "sekte"s are added, preferably into their own sublist. • Thinking about ease of implementation, maybe the draft rule/practice should be simplified to: "In list items where the reference keywords are different from only "cult", 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." Milo 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- If everyone feels it should be there then go ahead and add it. cairoi 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The poll was 5 to 1 for this practice offered as a rule. I've added it into the "Rhetoric redraft for consensus" below. Milo 08:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "As" rule format contortions
I'm noticing several rhetorical contortions caused by forcing the old "as" format: "in that", "as such", and two inverted logic "as not"s. For example, notice how much more cleanly rule #2 would read without the "as a group in that" phrase: "Organizations, and sets of individual practitioners, including those referenced or named by their technical practice of cult (cultus), qualify as groups." I think "Inclusion is based on a single reference:" could be moved into the first rule to make the awkward "as" format go away. Should "Inclusion" become "Listing" for consistency? Milo 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- There are some contortions but the information is clearly presented. If you want to repharase go ahead. cairoi 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ok, below is the de-'as'-ed "Rhetoric redraft for consensus". Milo 08:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Improvements
Whew! Yet another proposed alteration to the criteria of this article. I'm not counting, but this must be at least the 10th in the last few years. I don't want to sound like an old timer, but I sure do feel like one. Even so, this latest effort sounds to my weary ears like a reasonable proposal. Good clear, neutral standards are best for an article of this type. We can, and probably always will, quibble over the exact boundaries. Let's seek to make those squabbles as small as possible. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name change proposal (moved)
There seems to be on going confusion as to what the list actually shows. I believe this stems partly from a vague title. I would like to propose a stronger title: "List of uses of the word cult since the 1920's"
Perhaps people could put their Y's or N's below and maybe accompany them with any suggestions or criticisms.
- I do think some clarification is needed; if not a name change then perhaps a definitive statement in the inroductory paragraph of the article. Is the purpose of this list (a) to collect under one heading groups that have been alleged to be cults or (b) to serve as a bibliography which collects under one heading media references to "cults" ? There is a small but crucial distinction between the two. The former is classificatory, to put groups into this category, while the latter is linguistic, to provide a bibliography of media references to cults. The former is subjective and raises serious problems of definition (is it really a cult? how do you know? how many people have to think so?) while the latter is objective (did someone in the media call it a cult, even just once?). --Bookgrrl 14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's closer to (b), but includes more than just media. While the list's character is linguistic to avoid bias, the purpose is not. • Bookgrrl, you may not be aware of the very delicate reporting balance in which this article exists at all. It would take a long time to (re)explain every detail. If you are really interested, I urge you read archives 7 & 8, this current page, and the most recent AfD debate (links are at the top of this page). Clarifying statements can be done as you suggest, but to avoid stirring up dissent (again), best not until the redrafted rules wording (and then preamble) are consensed. Milo 05:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for the suggestion, I did go back and re-read a good bit of the debate. Also I didn't realize that the Rhetoric redraft for consensus poll above was still open, thought it had closed. I shall add my comments there and hope for a good solid preamble and rules, particularly the addition of the words "reliable source" and the requirement for more than one mention :) --Bookgrrl 01:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The requirement for more than one mention (multiple references) was not consensed in the most recent rules poll, and is beyond the mandate of the wording and phrasing Rhetoric redraft for consensus poll. It could happen though. Milo 07:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Y cairoi 02:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Y - I know I'm puzzled LOL!! If indeed the purpose of this list is to show how the word "cult" has been used in the 20th century, then let's by all means call it that. Maybe it would alleviate some of the confusion. --Bookgrrl 03:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- How about, "Groups that have been referred to as cults" ? --Bookgrrl 14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- "List" means it's a specific type of article following list article rules. Milo 05:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- How about, "Groups that have been referred to as cults" ? --Bookgrrl 14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- N - it isn't necessary to spell out the complete criteria in the article name. -Will Beback 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- N "List of uses of the word cult since the 1920's" Antaeus Feldspar reasoned it well [below], "The purpose of this list is not "to show how the word "cult" has been used in the 20th century"". The purpose of the article is reliable source cult references for further groups research. The sideshow focus on the linguistic word is an effect of avoiding bias, but allowing it to drift further toward the word could result in successful AfD. The word itself is not interesting to most people. OTOH, the groups referred to are not only interesting but their existence has collectively compelled global citizens to demand that their governments make such lists. Furthermore, "referred to" in the title, and references generally, are important because article opponents have been logically unable to attack that prime Wikipedia concept. • "There seems to be on going confusion as to what the list actually shows." That's partly because the redraft rules (and then preamble) can't seem to get consensed. When those are done then clearer explanations can supplement the rules. Renaming the article in other than minor ways could send the process back to square one by ungluing a lengthy consensus of the top level principles. Milo 05:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- N. Quoting Will Beback, "it isn't necessary to spell out the complete criteria in the article name". --Monger 00:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- N. If anything, the title should be changed to something like "Groups about which cult concerns have been raised". The purpose of this list is not "to show how the word "cult" has been used in the 20th century", despite a recurring and persistent effort to push this article into a focus on the word instead of what the word refers to. Wikipedia has an article on drunkenness, and not separate articles on all the different words that designate that concept; Wikipedia has an article on sexual intercourse, and not separate articles on "knocking boots", "getting jiggy with it", "doing the nasty" and other Urban-Dictionaryisms that denote the concept. I really don't know why some people think this article is or should be devoted to trivial factoids about instances of the word rather than the concepts, or perhaps I should say I cannot fathom any argument for doing so that doesn't involve a rather non-Wikipedian attempt to surpress rather than promote information on the subject. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Brilliant!! I like that suggestion very much, "Groups about which cult concerns have been raised." Clearly delineates the purpose of the list, shifts the emphasis from the group itself (bypassing the question of whether they are or are not allegedly cults) to the public's perception of the groups ("concerns have been raised"). --Bookgrrl 23:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'll go with Feldspar on this one for the same reasons as Bookgrrl. cairoi 03:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- "Groups about which cult concerns have been raised." That is an editorial bias which implies that cults may be bad. AfD and other article critics have repeatedly hammered editors here for bad-cult bias, when there is no need for it in maintaining a useful research list. The fact is that there are good cults (in the case of Alcoholics Anonymous, scientifically proved as a mind-controlling cult (Alexander & Rollins, 1984, quoted) yet also beneficial (Vaillant, 2005)). The limited statistical evidence is that ~95% of cults are good enough to avoid coming to government or media attention (compare the USA's 3,000 to 5,000 "Prevalence of purported cults" in Cult, to the 80-some listed here). • Likewise, I'm opposed to this article being labeled as part of Category:Alleged cults. That is an editorial bias by which Wikipedia has 'decided' that being called a cult is not only bad but implies criminality. I call for a consensus of editors for that biased category label to be removed from this article. Milo 05:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The problem here is "which of several flawed alternatives is the best?" If anyone were to propose a category name which would clearly indicate "this group is thought to be a cult by some sources, but that is disupted by others", then it would be easy to get consensus. However, no one has yet been able to suggest a category name that meets that apparently simple description; some feel that "Alleged cults" implies criminality, others feel that "purported cults" has something wrong with it as well -- we may have to settle on the best of a set of flawed alternatives, and not wait for a perfect answer that may not exist. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "a category name which would clearly indicate "this group is thought to be a cult by some sources, but that is disputed by others"" That issue can be 'avoidanced': WP:Avoidance. All those same problems existed here before my editing time. I don't know who suggested it (anyone know?), but in retrospect the name morph to List of groups referred to as cults is my choice for conceptually brilliant. Why not make a similar choice at Category:Cults/Purported cults/Alleged cults? How about: 'Category:Cult references' ? • Here's why: Consensing editors are unlikely to get consensus from those who wish to suppress reporting for non-Wikipedia reasons (e.g., the half-truth claim that global citizens are unfair to NRMs for demanding cult watching). Knowing they cannot philosophically prevail in the pro-reporting environment of Wikipedia, they choose to AfD or otherwise dispute on technicalities. I was impressed to discover that they can't technically dispute "the reference" without revealing their anti-reporting, anti-encyclopedia agenda. With the reference being a Wiki done deal, that mostly leaves legitmate issues of list reporting fairness, which consensing editors do address, though more slowly than the legitmately aggrieved would like. Milo 00:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
The use of categories in cases such as this one, in which there are conflicting viewpoints and definitions about what a cult is, is not a good idea, and may be in violation of WP:NPOV. If we add group X to such a category, we are de facto asserting that the group was referred by someone as a cult, without the proper presentation of the conflicting viewpoints and without the benefit of a disclaimer as we have in the article's lead. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- "The use of categories in cases ... in which there are conflicting viewpoints and definitions about what a cult is, is not a good idea" I agree with Jossi's generalization - there may well be conflicting viewpoints and definitions, and a need for disclaimers about what a cult is, within a category titled like "Category:Cults". • "we are de facto asserting that the group was referred by someone as a cult, without the proper presentation of the conflicting viewpoints" However, I don't agree with that next statement, only because it contains the magic word "referred". A simple reference is very nearly a quantum/granular/binary unit. A reference is usually either a fact or an error. Ambiguity or a shaded conflicting viewpoint in a reference is unexpected. A reference either does or does not claim that a group is a cult, whatever the referrer may mean by that (though consensed irrelevant meanings are excluded by the rules here). As proposed, Wikipedia would transparently and only claim that the referrer did use the word — and avoid claiming or implying anything else, like the "purported" or "alleged" baggage. • AFAIK, "Category:Cult references" or a "Category:Referred to as a cult" (neither currently exists) would be nearly bulletproof NPOV category titles. That's why I'm recommending them. Milo 07:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Related categories (moved)
The statement at Category:Alleged cults says, "Groups should be included in the category only after they meet the criteria defined at List of groups referred to as cults and are listed there. That list and this list of categories should contain the same items and items that are not first added to that list will be immediately removed. Items that are removed from that list will also be removed from this category."
Is this still true and if so is anyone monitoring the correlation? This list and the category members don't match at the moment... --Bookgrrl 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Since we're "cleaning house," how about Category:Leaders of alleged cults ? Seems like this one should go too on the same basis perhaps... --Bookgrrl 20:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_16#Leaders_of_alleged_cults ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Salon as a source for this article (moved)
A concern has been raised about the reliability of salon.com. You can read the following discussion and comment if you like. See Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia Andries 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
For those interested, this was about whether a Salon.com cult investigation could be used as a reliable source in a biography of a living person (see WP:BLP). The issue was raised partly because Salon calls itself a "smart tabloid". Tabloids report sensational stories about the crimes and sins of famous living persons, but like People (magazine) and unlike the grocery store tabloid Weekly World News, Salon does check its facts. Salon somewhat specializes in cult investigations, and 10 of them are listed in this article, List of groups referred to as cults.
The arbitrator's conclusions, which I supported, was (1) that Salon.com is a reliable source, and (2) the general reports of sex abuse from Salon could be used in this BLP, because three other reliable publications had reported them, plus a constructively identified warning by the USA State Department. OTOH, (3) the arbitrator said individual abuse testimonies could not be used because they might be wrong and might not have been reported elsewhere.
List of groups referred to as cults is generally unaffected, but on the positive side, use here of Salon.com has been reaffirmed. Milo 11:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rhetoric redraft comments
This section is for storing long comments associated with poll votes in section "Rhetoric redraft for consensus poll (moved)" below
Should reliable source be capitalized? It over-glorifies the term. [ 159.178.19.146 08:53, 07 Sep 2006 (UTC) [9] ]
- It's better form not to I suppose. cairoi 14:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think it should be cap'ed -- rationale given above for capitalizing was to visually indicate that a specific WikiGuideline was being referenced. I think this is a good one -- might encourage readers/potential editors to look at the guideline before making changes. If not capped, then propose following change "...reliable source (as defined by Wikipedia"Reliable Sources)..." --Bookgrrl 11:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[moved from NO in "Poll votes" below] "Inclusion is based on a single reference" is a key point that needs to be emphasized and is a big part of the reason why there is less dispute on this page, IMHO. The vacation will be over. This is a foolish list and to move that phrase into the list and duct-taping on "reliable reference" starts it's obfuscation. If it is obscured, something else needs to be prominant to help the "global citizens" understand the nature of this list. It's simple and clear as is. It allows people to see it and think: "A single reference? How stupid is that? What's the point of this list. I can use Google too." Verily. And that's the reason why it needs to be clear. Jiva Goswami 03:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding what you're asking for. cairoi 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sympathetic to Jiva's issue. I've made several multiple references proposals, but only one other editor has positively responded to date. So for now it's to be a single reference even though Jiva and I prefer otherwise. • Jiva wrote "Inclusion is based on a single reference" for the reasons of visual emphasis he implied. I have moved the important addition "reliable source" (see my reply to John Campbell below) to the end of the opening sentence, which retains the unity of the "single reference" phrase as Jiva wrote it. Placing of a "1." in front of the opening sentence does move it into the list by rulecraft, but not by position. It is an insignificant change in visual emphasis from the current edit. This draft still relieves the "as" contortions, and I think it still improves clarity in the rest of the rules. Milo 07:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[moved from Y in "Poll votes" below] Except that I strongly oppose the 1920 cutoff, item #4. In the Western tradition, way back when, there were cults of Aphrodite, Dionysius, Isis, Mary, and Kali (to name only a few among thousands). I don't see why we'd want to exclude such well-known cults. Inclusion of these myriad and (dare I say) culturally-benign groups would go far towards improving the NPOV of the list. -Will Beback 10:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- "I don't see why we'd want to exclude such well-known cults." Having sincerely debated all comers on this issue for several months, I suggest that compiling an all-inclusive list of "cults" from all times is a mythical conception, and a bit too much of an academic exercise in listing 'things referred to by homonyms'. (An equivalent point about things referred to by the letters c-u-l-t was made last summer by Gimmetrow.) • If one is compiling cults from all times, then all major religions have to be listed, since they all began as cults. Yet readers, including me, simply will not accept that mainsteam branches of major religions are listable as cults now, merely because they may have started that way. Furthermore, I think some members of those mainstream religions were incapable of being academically reconciled, to being on the same list as highly-publicized destructive cults. Recalling an icky story told here last summer, it's also beyond our grasp to be completely fair to every cult group in history who was massacred by a dominant religion behaving much like the destructive cults. • OTOH, the last hundred years of cults is within our grasp to understand and at least try to be fair. We have the consensed authority of J. Gordon Melton to tell us that the modern popular definition of cult became entrenched after 1920. I now agree with another editor that 1898 (or rounded to 1900) would be a slightly better choice, but he didn't cite any authority, so Melton's 1920+ rule it became. • Finally, I suggest that this list, into which you have put so much work (thank you), isn't defendable from AfD without some reasonable boundaries such as that provided by the 1920+ rule. For whatever reason, controversy seemed to melt away shortly after it was consensed. Milo 07:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] North American and British dialects
As 1(A) stands, it appears to exclude references to "cult" in anything other than North American English, such as sources from the UK, Australia or New Zealand. Surely the intention is to include direct references to the word "cult" in English from anywhere in the world? Additionally, the reliable source requirement, which is in any case standard Wikipedia practice, is already stated in 1 itself, and shouldn't be repeated in 1(A), certainly unless the implication is intended that reliable sourcing is only relevant for 1(A). In which case 1(A) might be better as: (A) as a "cult" in English anywhere; John Campbell 08:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your observations.
- "1(A) ... appears to exclude references to "cult" in anything other than North American English, ... Surely the intention is to include direct references to the word "cult" in English from anywhere in the world?" Not unconditionally. The purpose is to make the North American English definitions and their associated connotations to be the master reference, so that whatever word is used elsewhere, it must be intended in some non-excluded North American sense. In the last 50 years of references valid for this list, "cult" often didn't mean or imply the same things in British English. I think historically British English used "cult" to mean typically old or ancient devotions, like "Cult of Mary" and "Cult of Aphrodite". I'm told that traditional British "sect" means both "denomination" [but not currently - see COED definitions below], and in implied context, 'group that might be abusively exploiting its members (etc)'. More recently I have seen a UK newspaper use both "sect" and "cult" while reporting exploitation, clearly picking up the North American usage. Accordingly, I have extended rule #1 to apply the North American English contextual test to both "sect" and "cult" in British English, with the Reliable Source definitions for all uses of "cult" moved to a new (D).
- "the reliable source requirement, which is in any case standard Wilipedia practice, is already stated in 1 itself, and shouldn't be repeated in 1(A)" The redraft rhetoric is directed to newcomers who tend to edit first and learn the requirements later. Many well-meaning drive-by editors have dropped-in cult references from random unreliable web sites, and regular editors then have to do reverts. The second reliable source phrase emphasizes that definitions must also be reliable, which matters because this list accepts all "cult" definitions not excluded. Using "Reliable Source" twice helps drive-bys to question whether they really know what it means (they often don't), and hopefully they will click on it to learn. That's also why I prefer to capitalize "Reliable Source" as a pseudo proper noun.
- Milo 07:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agree with capitalizing Reliable Source per Milo. --Bookgrrl 11:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
-
Very reasonable redraft, but what about the Antipodes? It's not just North America and the British Isles that speak English John Campbell 12:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- There are only two written dialects of English in the world: North American English (NAmE) and British English (BrE). Historically, NAmE was taught in Japan (and probably USA protectorate islands), with BrE taught elsewhere. The article American and British English differences reads, "British English has a reasonable degree of uniformity in its formal written form, which, as taught in schools, is largely the same as in the rest of the English-speaking world (except North America)."
- The article Formal written English reads, "The differences in formal writing that occur in the various parts of the English-speaking world are so slight that many dozens of pages of formal English can be read without the reader coming across any clues as to the origin of the writer, far less any difficulties of comprehension."
- Obviously, "cult" and "sect" are special comprehension cases for BrE references up to 50 years ago, but the point is that there only two dialectical possibilities for each in formal writing.
- According to the list at English language, there are roughly 80 minor spoken dialects of English, most of them originally derived from BrE. These represent cultures that might hold local connotative meanings for "cult" or "sect". Fortunately, List of groups referred to as cults will always point to reliable sources that invariably convert these local dialects into formal written English. In the process, it would unexpected for a reporter not to also convert local "cult" or "sect" connotations into a formally described context, if they differed significantly from a British dictionary. This makes possible the rule 1(B) contextual test, for BrE "cult" and "sect" used elsewhere to be compared with "cult"s context in NAmE. Milo 04:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More comments
[comments from below poll vote follow] Bookgrrl 01:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- 1 -- yes, please add "reliable source." Eliminates any confusion over permissible sources. Also suggest adding "minimum of three reliable sources" and "sources must come from three different authors" to eliminate potential bias/grudge/axe-grinding by a a single author and consequent "is too" "is not" battles.
- 3 & 4 -- if we add the time limit, then perhaps the word "modern" should be added to the list title. Eliminates question of things like cult of Diana or cult of Mithras.
-
- "perhaps the word "modern" should be added to the list title" In Archive 8 [10], Milo wrote on 28 July 2006 : "...what does "modern" mean? In one art era sense, "modern" now means some period of time during the 20th century. Whatever - it being art, folks will debate that term for decades to come. It matters here because art eras have an effect on the evolution of dictionary definitions of sociology and related disciplines' "terms of art". • The reason for setting boundaries by date rather than period, is that it uses WP:Avoidance to make a lot of potential disputes into non-issues. This also avoids Wikipedia being perceived as taking sides on defining what a cult is, rather than just quoting many external definitions. " • To make this point obvious, if "modern" was in the title, the newest cults would claim that they weren't listable because they were founded in the post-modern era. Milo 09:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Heh. Good point. Can/should we add it in the title, then, e.g. "List of groups referred to as cults (1920-present)" so that drive-by editors will be unable to avoid seeing it? --Bookgrrl 11:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I only recall one drive-by editor dropping in a cult prior to 1920, founded 1914, IIRC (which btw, convinced me that Chonak was on the right track in promoting 1898 — say, rounded to 1900 — as the modern cult start date). • Really, the more significant problem is drive-bys dropping in references from unreliable sources, typically populist notions of cultic activities mentioned at personal web sites. For example, a lot of Jewish teens seem to think of BBYO as a cult. I haven't seen that picked up in the mainstream reliable press yet, and considering how touchy the context is, it may never happen. • It's to be avoided, but abating a drip-drip nuisance is a justification for the inflexibility imposed by putting too many details in a title. I suppose one could propose "List of groups referred to as cults by Reliable Sources", but would drive-bys simply assume their web site was "reliable" to them? Alternatively, one could propose "List of groups referred to as cults by [[Reliable Sources]]" (removing the redlink by creating a redirect page). Technically interesting — I wonder if it's even possible to Wikilink within a title? Milo 19:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Criteria 1
I question the usefulness of criteria 1 -- a single mention anywhere? So if I can find any statement anywhere that says Christianity, Judaism, Mary Kay, Wikipedia, Mickey Mouse, or anything else is a cult, then I can include it on this list? That seems (a) hasty and (b) unreliable, since "cult" is often thrown around as an insult to some groups. Presumably this has already been debated but can someone summarize for me the justification for this very loose and subjective criteria? This seems to make the definition so broad as to be useless, kind of like defining "dog" as "not a cat." --Bookgrrl 12:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, do we distinguish between the media labelling something a cult, and a person interviewed in the media labelling something a cult? i.e., must the judgment come from the popular press, or can it come from Elsie the Cow as long as it's quoted in the popular press? --Bookgrrl 12:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- 1) Yes, a single mention is sufficient. 2) No, the writer of the article, not some random person being interviewed, must use the term. At least those are the standards we've followed inthe past. -Will Beback 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- My question is "Why is a single mention sufficient?" In other words, what's the rationale for accepting this rather flimsy criteria? Even with the caveat that the claim must be made by the writer of the article it's pretty slim support, particularly since it doesn't have to be a "reputable source" but can be any popular media (would an article in the National Enquirer suffice? does it even have to be print media? how about a blog?). Criteria for other "alleged" categories seems more stringent. For example, Category:Alleged witches were tried in court as witches. Category:Alleged Al Wafa associates are accused as such by the U.S. government. Category:Alleged illegal copies of major motor models have been involved in litigation... --Bookgrrl 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The media source must qualify as a relaible source. So the National Enquirer or a random blog would not qualify. A single mention is sufficient. If an article calls an animal a "cat", does it need to repeat that description three times for us to regard the animal as a cat? -Will Beback 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Obviously not; I was referring to more than one different mention. My point is that perhaps the definition should specify, for example, three different articles, or articles by three different authors, or articles in three different publications, rather than just the one, to guard against slanderous or baseless allegations made by a single party. I suppose using reliable sources minimizes that risk, though I still think a single mention shouldn't be sufficient. If you look hard enough you can find a single mention of just about anything, even in so-called reliable sources... --Bookgrrl 01:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- This makes sense. Otherwise how can we be sure the author of a particular source's writing isn't based on personal bias? Also this approach would guard against any questions people may have on the validity of an arument given by any single author. Sfacets 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- This list indexes 'references' to groups as cults that fit the established criteria. It does not require an evaulation of the validity of the arguments put forward by the source containing the reference. In other words this is not a list of cults but a list showing how people use the word cult. cairoi 02:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "the writer of the article, not some random person being interviewed, must use the term". I didn't realise that from the criteria as stated -- does that need clarification? How random is random? I am aware that at least some of the references quoted in the article are there on the basis of a quotation from an interviewee. John Campbell 08:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Caroi - wouldn't this raise relevance issues? After all, does anyone care what 'random' people define as criteria, and which groups fit these criteria? Inclusion of sources still need to meet a certain standard, which Bookgrrl's proposal would only enforce because it would remove any ambiguity in regards to the author in question's motives. Sfacets 09:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "the writer of the article, not some random person being interviewed, must use the term. At least those are the standards we've followed in the past. -User:Will Beback" Until the 1920+ rule removed it, one of the most prominent references in the list was a local chairperson of the U.S. Republican Party resigning (IIRC, Denver in 1994), and being quoted writing that the party had become a cult. Looks to me like anyone quoted in the reliable source can make the cult claim under the current rules, and certainly as recently practiced. I don't see a problem — the whole point of reliable sources is that they won't allow the reporter to write it, or print an equivalent quote, without relevance and due caution by a team of editors, managers, and lawyers. Milo 06:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "[T]he whole point of reliable sources is that they won't allow the reporter to write it, or print an equivalent quote, without relevance and due caution" That's just flat not true. Quotes appear in articles all the time that are weird, misleading, goofy, or outright lies ("Mission accomplished," anyone?), because as a journalist if I quote an intervieweee I am ethically required to use those quotes verbatim. If I interview Charles Manson, and he says "I believe I am Jesus Christ," as a reporter I must report that quote verbatim. I can (and of course would) frame it by saying, "This man is a loony because he said, "I believe I am Jesus Christ," but I cannot change his actual words. Hence my suggested clarification that the "cult" allegation should be used by the author of the article, not by whoever they are interviewing. Bookgrrl 01:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] COED defines UK cult - sect - denomination
I just looked up "cult", "sect", and "denomination" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English. I assume it's a subset of the OED — the ultimate dictionary authority of British English:
- sect
- • noun 1 a group of people with different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong. 2 a group with extreme or dangerous philosophical or political ideas.
- — ORIGIN Latin secta ‘following, faction’, from sequi ‘follow’.
- http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sect?view=uk
- cult
- • noun 1 a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object. 2 a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members. 3 something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society. — ORIGIN Latin cultus ‘worship’.
- http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/cult?view=uk
- denomination
- • noun 1 a recognized branch of a church or religion. 2 the face value of a banknote, coin, postage stamp, etc. 3 formal a name or designation.
- http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/denomination?view=uk
"Sect" is not a currently a "denomination" - did it mean that 50 years ago? Interesting that a British sect can be more dangerous than a British cult. Btw, the Sect article currently omits British English: "In European languages other than English the corresponding words for 'sect', such as "secte", "secta", or "Sekte", are used to refer to a harmful religious or political sect, similar to how English-speakers popularly use the word 'cult'." Milo 05:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- My gut feeling of common [journalistic] usage here in the UK, is that "cult" is almost always used with overtones of dangerous or abusive, while "sect" is largely free of those connotations. As the late Bernard Levin used to say, the dictionary definition is immaterial, what matters is what people understand by the word. He illustrated this with the word "mugger", defined as a broud-snouted Indian crocodile. John Campbell 10:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Especially with this list we would want to avoid gut feelings and find information from verifiable sources. cairoi 01:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I was responding to Milo's "Interesting that..." comment, which didn't seem to need the same Reliable Source criterion. I should perhaps have phrased my comment with greater clarity, to say that I would need to find sources to support my understanding that common usage in the UK over the past 30 or so years is different from the dictionary definition given above, and almost identical to the Wikipedia definitions in sect and cult, which make no distinction between North American and British English in this respect. John Campbell 08:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Now here's a couple of UK newspaper articles using the word cult as described above: Daily Telegraph and Scotsman, while the UK-based Cult Information Centre distinguishes between cult and sect in this way: "Before beginning counselling the counsellor needs to be sure that it was indeed a cult and not a sect in which the person was enmeshed. A sect may be described as a spin-off from an established religion or quite eclectic, but it does not use techniques of mind control on its membership." --John Campbell 12:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- John Campbell, good work on finding these references. The CIC quote does clearly make the point that British English usage of "cult" coincides with the COED definition 2 that focused on "excessive control". "Excessive control" is also quite likely, the most important element of the USA populist meaning. As well, the CIC quote seems to confirm that the old British contextual use of "sect" for cultic groups has faded away. That still leaves the problem here of editors' having a clear enough understanding of contextual-cultic "sect" in the 50-year-old historic references. Definitions from a then-current OED dictionary might be helpful. Milo 12:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Rhetoric redraft for consensus poll (moved)
Please add your Y/N poll vote and/or comment on the entire rules list redraft below #6. This is a poll on rhetoric (wording and phrasing). Unless you see an error I made in combining several sources, all of the rules concepts and many of the phrases have already been consensed by 5 of 6 or more in previous polls. If you are a new or returning editor please catch up with the relevant issues on this talk page before voting. Milo 18:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop runninng polls. These do not foster collaboration and are useless in most, of not all situations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Redraft by Milo 08:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
1. Listing is based on a single reliable source reference,
(A) as a "cult" in North American English using any non-excluded Reliable Source definition;(B) as a "sect" in British English only if contextually intended to mean "cult"; or,(C) as any foreign language word or phrase with a plain text translation and contextual intention to mean "cult".
Lots of words moved around, but there is less significant change than the strikes above would suggest. One change is to include the word "cult" in recent British usage that conforms to North American usage — see John Campbell's comment with reply below. The other is reordering words to retain the "single reference" phrase — see Jiva Goswami's comment with reply above. Milo 07:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Redraft edit by Milo 07:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
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.
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. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
[edit] Poll votes
Y cairoi 14:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Y Milo 18:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Y Monger 23:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
NO [with long comment moved to "Rhetoric redraft comments" above] Jiva Goswami 03:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Y [with long comment moved to "Rhetoric redraft comments" above] -WillBeback 10:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Y [with comments moved to "Rhetoric redraft comments" above] - Bookgrrl 01:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
I think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints should be added to this article as it has been refered to a cult by many people and organisations. There are also a number of websites which claim that the mormon church recruits people and brainwashes them. What does everyone think? --Xsamix 09:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- That group was in the list with a source for a long time. I don't know what happened to it. For the time being I've added it into the "Exclusive to the French Report" section. If you can find a reliable source then it could be moved into the main section. -Will Beback · † · 10:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded in 1830. On or about Aug 6, 2006, LDS was excluded by rule #4: "as named by reliable sources to have not existed independently prior to 1920 in its substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices". See this page § "Items removed under 1920+ rule", where LDS should added to Hroðulf's incomplete list. Milo 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ah yes, I'd missed that. My mistake. Thanks for catching it. -Will Beback · † · 04:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question about cult inclusion choices
Where did the requirements for inclusion come from? I know you guys voted on them but who decided they were what most people refer to as cults? Some references would be very helpful. --Calibas 03:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- General references are at Cult. See also Cult checklist. -Will Beback · † · 05:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- "who decided they were what most people refer to as cults?" If I understand your question, I think your premise is incorrect. The editors here stopped doing that due to ongoing complaints over several years. Instead they gradually evolved exclusion requirements, since there is broad consensus on what most people don't refer to as cults. Everything else referred to as a c-u-l-t or its foreign equivalent — that is not excluded — is allowed. • It was before my time and not my idea, so I can say it was a clever piece to help solve a controversial list-reporting puzzle. I award barnstars to editors who believe they significantly contributed. Milo 17:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Origin of the 1920+ rule
I can't find a reference anywhere that says cults are only cults if they were founded before 1920. Does anybody know the logic behind this rule? If not it should be removed, I can provide plenty of references that this isn't popular opinion. --Calibas 04:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- You can read the talk pages and their archives. It's all in there cairoi 04:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay, I did some reading. The 1920 rule came about because that's when the term cult came into use (as we know it). How this came to mean that groups formed considered cults before 1920 are no longer I'm not sure. It appears that the idea was formed by User:Milomedes. I can provide plenty of evidence that groups before 1920 are still referred to as cults. All the other rules fit what I would think average people consider cults but the 1920 rule seems to be here primarily to keep some sanity to the page. Yes, it's useful, but I dont think it fits NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source". --Calibas 04:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- On the contrary, one can't achieve NPOV without 1920+ rule (or something like it). This debate has many details, but I'll try to simplify it.
- • The 1920+ rule is a disambiguation of the first from later homonyms spelled c-u-l-t. Average people were raised to think "cult" means only one thing when it actually means up to eight things. You are reflecting that average viewpoint by suggesting you're not sure why groups formed before 1920 are no longer considered cults. But with a few notorious exceptions, average people do think that.
- • The senior homonym "cult" derives from an ancient veneration form of worship, notably RCC's The Cult of Mary ("cultus"). Skipping over a junior homonym or two, some major religions got labeled "cults" due to an intermediate homonym, notably RCC (counter-cult). By several junior homonyms later, "cult" also means mind-controlled suicidal or homicidal group, notably "Peoples Temple".
- • RCC, Islam, Baptist, and Quaker supporters felt strongly that being listed alongside Peoples Temple and Aum Shinrynko was inappropriate. Average people, what I call global citizens, thought the same thing. One can't write a neutral point of view when what looks like the same word, but isn't, means different things to different people, and especially seems to mean good and bad groups at the same time.
- • Editors here had a debate about between a choice between 1920 and 1898 (say, rounded to 1900), as the start of the modern cult era. What it came down to was the editor preferring 1898 didn't mention an authority for that date. Alternatively, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (OCRT) - Definitions of terms: Cults, Sects and Denominations do mention cult authority J. Gordon Melton in association with a date range beginning in 1920.
During the 1920s and 1930s, sociologists who were studying religion started to use it to refer to those faith groups that were not full denominations or sects. According to J. Gordon Melton, "They were a group that just didn’t fit, and they were termed cults. They were treated primarily as esoterica in American religion."
- Milo 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary, one can't achieve NPOV without 1920+ rule (or something like it). This debate has many details, but I'll try to simplify it.
-
- Well, according to the page you cite, that definition is a past use of the term cult. In fact, here's J. Gordon Melton's own definition of cult: "My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological literature in the 1930s.". I can only find references that state that 1920 was when the meaning of the word changed, not that it was, as you said, the start of the "modern cult era". This simply means that any reference before 1920 shouldn't be used (a moot point because of your 50 year rule).
- As to your point "RCC, Islam, Baptist, and Quaker supporters felt strongly that being listed alongside Peoples Temple and Aum Shinrynko was inappropriate. Average people, what I call global citizens, thought the same thing. One can't write a neutral point of view when what looks like the same word, but isn't, means different things to different people, and especially seems to mean good and bad groups at the same time", here's another quote from that page you reference: "Popular, media usage: (very negative meaning) a small, evil religious group, often with a single charismatic leader, which engages in brainwashing and other mind control techniques, believes that the end of the world is imminent, and collects large amounts of weaponry in preparation for a massive war.". I don't know where you live but in the U.S. and Canada the word cult has a very negative meaning.
- Back to the 1920 rule, I can provide plenty of popular media references that people commonly refer to groups founded before 1920 as cults. I hate to pick on them (I'm not a member and I dont consider them a cult) but there's a certain group founded in the 19th century that's probably called cult more than any other group. I dont think something called "List of groups referred to as cults" would be very complete if some of the groups most commonly called cults aren't included. This page could be a great reference for documenting religious intolerance, but right now it's mostly just a list of religious groups founded after 1920. Poor guys, it's not their fault the meaning of the word changed in 1920. You make some nice points but in my eyes they just mean that when referencing sources we need to keep in my where it's coming from. I move to eliminate the 1920's rule, since the only reference says it's not something used anymore. --Calibas 05:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• "according to the page you cite, that definition is a past use of the term cult" The definition was not relevant. It just happened to be in the sentence with Melton's name.
• "I can only find references that state that 1920 was when the meaning of the word changed, not that it was, as you said, the start of the "modern cult era"." Quite so, and for several reasons that you will find debated on this page[11], "modern" is purposefully not mentioned in the rule.
• "I don't know where you live but in the U.S. and Canada the word cult has a very negative meaning." Yes, that's one reason why RCC supporters don't want any of post-1920 "cult" junior homonyms applied to The Cult of Mary by list association. They're such nice people; do you really want to help lay the tar brush back on them?
• "Back to the 1920 rule, I can provide plenty of popular media references that people commonly refer to groups founded before 1920 as cults." Yep, I can think of a few. All but one of them have 'graduated' (my term), meaning that, they still annoy and worry average people through proselytization and religious conversion of relatives, but global citizens don't think they are likely to cause social disruption or go ballistic. (On another cult-talk page, I documented when one of them came to my door while I was writing a post.)
• "I don't think something called "List of groups referred to as cults" would be very complete if some of the groups most commonly called cults aren't included." Yes, this list will never be complete, in no small measure due to editors who keep deleting their cult. You might discover that you couldn't keep the pre-1920 cults on the list. (Barely to mention that at least 2,920 cults[12] are so obscure that they have completely escaped being listed.)
• "I move to eliminate the 1920's rule, since the only reference says it's not something used anymore." Pardon, but you seriously misunderstood that point. It's the date range in the first sentence that matters. Well-known Dr. Melton appears to be one of the sociologists who first applied the new definition of cult "During the 1920s and 1930s". His particular definition in the quote may now be obsolete, but like falling dominoes, it helped trigger a wave of 7-some c-u-l-t junior homonyms that are still in use. Milo 15:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rick Ross as a source
As discussed previously (see previous archives) the Rick Ross website is not a reliable source for this article. Also note that the www.thepeoplesvoice.org/ is also not a reliable source for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree in general. However much of the material on Ross's website is not his own work, but rather reprints from relaible sources. Since those often violate copyrights we should list the original source, and then indicate we've accessed it via Ross's site without linking to it. www.thepeoplesvoice.org is obviously not appropriate. -Will Beback · † · 04:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- There's no problem with a URL like "www.thepeoplesvoice.org" since the "partly reliable" archive website concept is explained in the header to the articles external links. I strongly disagree with not linking to what Rick Ross has archived of reliable sources. That makes it practically impossible to research or defend the vetted links or to vet new ones. Firstly, Ross' and others' archived articles are obviously claimed as USA copyright fair use to study a significant USA national policy and social issue. Second, copyvio if any, is the website owner's problem. Milo 12:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Jossi, I do not think that your removal of sourced information, though not correctly cited information has merit. I do not see a good reason to remove information when the source is readily available in the referenced external link. I will re-insert with a proper citation. Andries 17:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You are missing the point. The Virginian-Pilot is not a reliable source for this article. The article reads John Newton, formerly of Meower Power, a local organization that cares for stray cats. He uses the term "cult-like" to describe PETA.. That is insufficient to list PETA as a group referred to as a cult. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Okay, I guess your are right. Sorry. Andries 18:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Article critics would roast the editors here for listing a group if the source weasle-worded their judgment with "cult-like", "almost", "nearly", "close to", etc.
- jossi:
- Note a terminology correction of the reason for removal. AFAIK, The Virginian-Pilot is a newspaper and therefore is a reliable source, but the "like" quotation does not meet the article's rules requiring "as".
- Further up, I agree with citing the source directly in the visible text. I was complaining about Will's worrisome suggestion of deleting the invisible URL hotlink to the vettable archived text. ("then indicate we've accessed it via Ross's site without linking to it.") Milo 21:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- jossi:
- Is there any research on how reliably Rick Ross quotes from sources in his archives? Surely that is the relevant point. Without that, the article has to refer directly to the original source alone. John Campbell 12:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree that for purposes of this page the key issue is the reliablity of his quotes (and the fact that they are properly sourced) rather than the reliability of the content of the quote. Remember, this is a list of references, not a list of cults. Also (or alternatively) a heading entitled "Groups referred to as "cult" by the anti-cult movement" could be added (along the lines of the sociological, media and government headings), where Rick Ross's own references to groups as cults would appropriately belong. Really Spooky 14:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Article critics would roast the editors here for listing a group if the source weasle-worded their judgment with "cult-like", "almost", "nearly", "close to", etc.
-
-
[edit] Wikipedia on list?
The source used to justify including Wikipedia is based on an opinion piece (see the URL) and these generally don't need to go through the same fact checking and editorial review as regular articles. Adding a non-opinion piece qualification to the standards of inclusion might be a good idea. Antonrojo 19:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Three problems with this idea:
- "these generally don't need to go through the same fact checking and editorial review as regular articles" Where did you get this idea? Different editors perhaps, but every column inch gets checked. Libel is libel in any section of a publication. Calling a group a (non-fan) cult is a libel, so it has to be true, and that means checking the supporting facts.
- Deciding that a group is a cult is almost always someone's opinion. (Alexander & Rollins, 1984, is the only scientific study I've seen.) Why discriminate against against professional opinion contributors, when they are vetted by the same editor-publisher-lawyer combo that vets reporting of a man-in-street's opinion?
- Many reliable sources now run pieces that are mixed fact reporting and opinion commentary. How does one decide whether to use such pieces? This issue was a key part of the debate at Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia. Milo 22:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Milo, your persistent idea that media references are an objective authority (despite what is said in the header to this page) is flawed for several reasons.
- First, calling a group a ‘cult’ is not in itself a libel. Yes, as you acknowledge, it is a derogatory term (at least in its popular use), but one without a generally accepted definition and as such expresses an opinion (in contrast to provable labels such as ‘murderer’, ‘rapist’ or ‘paedophile’), which is one big reason why this page is so damn controversial. The authors of the French Parliamentary Report think Mormons and Evangelicals are cults. I suspect quite a number of media sources in Utah and the South think otherwise. The Washington Post thinks the Unification Church is a cult, the Washington Times doesn’t. Simply put, statements of opinion and value judgments are not libel.
- Second, even if it was potentially libellous to call a group a ‘cult’, the libel laws of most jurisdictions rarely require a media source to establish that a statement is “true” before publishing it. Almost always it is enough to show that the statement made was fair comment or criticism and was not made maliciously. If the media were held to such a high standard, it would make it almost impossible to do its job – after all, reports are often published within hours or even in real time. The standard on Wikipedia, however, is higher than that because it is an encyclopaedia, not a broadsheet.
- Third, even if one could prove a group is a ‘cult’ to a single, objective standard, and the media were bound to prove the truth of every such statement published, you are failing to take into account that the media, just like everyone else, is not always virtuous and infallible. Sometimes they will be negligent in checking their facts. Sometimes they will get them wrong. Sometimes they will say: to hell with ‘em, let ‘em sue us. In short, just because the media said it doesn’t make it true, or even more than likely to be true. --- Really Spooky
- There's an obvious conflict of interest in the Washington Times's opinions on the Unification Church. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Could you enlighten us about this COI? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- You are correct the Washington Times is owned by the Rev. Moon [13]. I would agree with Antonrojo on his point though, even though they say they are not influenced in their reporting, it is pretty hard to get past who signed the paycheck. PEACETalkAbout 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Milo, your persistent idea that media references are an objective authority (despite what is said in the header to this page) is flawed for several reasons.
[edit] Editorials delisting - please vote in poll
An editor added this to the criteria
- Inclusion is based on a single reference by a reputable source, not including editorials (also known as "opinion pieces" or "leading articles" in the United Kingdom):
with the comment:
- see talk section "Wikipedia on list?" and info at editorial which explains why these peices can be POV and can circumvent the regular fact-checking process
I don't see a consensus on this page for the change. All sources can be POV. It's only Wikipedia that we expect to be NPOV. -Will Beback · † · 06:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
Please vote in next section
Six reasons why this change is a dumb, dumber, and dumbest idea —
-
- 1. Unnecessary exclusion - reliable source editorials and reporting are both fact checked. (Btw, Editorial does not mention fact checking.)
- 2. Illogical discrimination - man-in-street opinions will be allowed; professional columnists who often break social news will not be.
- 3. Endless controversy - no way to decide on listing/delisting mixed fact and opinion sources.
- 4. POV sources normal - Agree with Will Beback that WP as a whole routinely reports POV sources, which routinely includes reliable source editorials.
- 5. Lost major sources - LOGRTAC's major source, Salon.com's 10 cult investigations including mixed fact/opinion pieces, surely will be attacked as editorials. See Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia
- 6. Wikipedia hypocrisy PR - listed cults will rightly argue that Wikipedia is not bona fide NPOV, because they changed the rules to delist themselves as a cult. Then other articles' POV warriors could add this charge to their arsenal. The story could even make mainstream newspaper news if Salon.com picks it up. This slippery slope might not happen, but why take a bet on a big PR loss against winning a trivial internal smugness? No one significantly cares that Charles Arthur called Wikipedia a cult ("Log on and join in, but beware the web cults") unless humorless Wikipedian ideologues are clumsy enough to make it into a big story. Milo 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A rationale for not including editorial sources
I could be wrong, but I don't think that editorial articles should be given the same weight as regular reporting.
- Specific response to the above points:
- 1. The relevant section of Editorial "expresses the opinion of the editor", or another outside party termed a "guest editor". While the intent of most news sources is to inform, these pieces are often intended to persuade. As is pointed out above, 'cult', like 'terrorist', is ill-defined and an unlikely source for libel. Also, opinion pieces are often treated differently in libel cases (see for example [14]. Opinion pieces in major US newspapers mention the "cult of victimology", the "cult of multiculturalism" and the cult of Oprah and Martha Stewart [15] and these references are used rhetorically or humorously.
- 2. I take this to mean that is a newspaper reported that "Jane Citizen says Buddhism is a cult" then that would count as a valid source by the criteria for this page. Like editorials, newspapers are simply reporting that statement secondhand rather than endorsing it as fact so the unreliable source of the statement would be the man on the street. By the same standard, I don't think that letters to the editor would qualify.
- 3. In my experience, newspapers and magazines clearly delimit the two. Whether or not media sources are biased, or whether true reporting are, respectively, political and philosophical questions. At core, as I understand it, is are the legal question of liability for libelous statements and an ethical standard by newspapermen to report objectively. If a source was not clearly labeled an editorial, then I don't think it would qualify for exclusion.
- 4. WP definitely discusses POV ideas and includes POV sources, and both can be done correctly or incorrectly. The key difference is that the source is defined as opinion rather than as fact, namely by attributing the opinion. See WP:AWW for example.
- 5. Again, as long as Salon.com is a reliable source and the news isn't set apart in a specific editorial section then this clause would not apply. If in fact the newspaper routinely mixes opinion and factual pieces, as is common with advocacy websites and some independent newspapers, then I don't think it would qualify as a reliable source.
- 6. The core of the issue is not WP-specific. It the humorous or rhetorical use of 'cult' should not be given the same level of recognition as regular reporting or academic research. I don't see how the fact that most Wikipedians don't care if we list them as a cult or that it can be used as POV warrior fodder should be a factor.
I plan to add some of the rhetorical uses of cult--in other words those mentioned in opinion pieces of reliable news sources--to the list to see if there is consensus for including these types of references. Antonrojo 15:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be thinking and writing precisely — could you provide a clearer definition of "rhetorical" that you are applying to "rhetorical uses of cult"? Otherwise, "rhetorical" has so many meanings that we might debate with cross understandings. Please search Google { define:rhetorical } and probably select from those various definitions and related phrases.
- • "Macintosh users" You added to LOGRTAC, from reliable source San Francisco Chronicle, a reference to article "Author plumbs bottomless depth of Mac worship", which is columnist Alan T. Saracevic's review of a book, "The Cult of Mac", by Leander Kahney. Kahney appears to be a recognized expert (Apple reporter for Wired News), so there are two reliable sources for this cult reference. This reference qualifies under "group" rules as "sets of individual practitioners", which avoids the debate over whether annual convention hall meetings are equivalent to daily ashram devotions. However, the serious question is whether this ref is rules-excluded as a "fancult of popular culture". That is a question of how seriously the source claims the practitioners take their devotions.
- • In examining a precedent LOGRTAC add, it was easy to decide exactly what Charles Arthur meant about the Wikipedia cult. He listed some cult definitions, and after wavering some, he concluded that Wikipedia met both a fan-cult and a non-fan-cult definition. The latter reference was accepted for listing.
- • Your future test-adds to LOGRTAC may be a challenge, but not this one. As with Wikipedia, there may also be a Mac fan-cult, yet I judge this one as conclusively not a fan-cult. Two Apple-Mac expert writers testify that they have been threatened by some to many Mac users:
-
- Leander Kahney, Wired News reporter:
"I've received death threats and hate mail over the years..."
- Lewis Perelman, Wired magazine writer:
"Perelman was inundated with hate mail and threats. 'It was incredibly vicious,' he tells Kahney"
- Leander Kahney, Wired News reporter:
-
- • This behavior is neither amusing, nor any longer presumed benign, given the inferred youth of those making the threats, combined with the fact of many fatal USA school shootings in recent years.
- • I would argue that this is exactly the kind of rule-based, coal-mine-canary research lead that Wikipedia should be providing to those sociologists and others who are qualified to proportionally assess this security challenge. If warranted, they will help warn governments, who will warn their global citizens. Those citizens have mandated cult-watching, partly because of local religious competition for converts, but also because of the undeniable threat posed by the occasional rise of destructive cults.
- • Of course, our Mac-using friends aren't cult-obsessed like that, and so they aren't in the non-fan-cult. By analogy, one can own books of scripture in which one is not a believer, yet be admiring of their prose, poetry, or philosophy. Perhaps the cult name that you chose, "Macintosh users" is so general as to be POV? Reading the article again, I suggest "Macintosh cultists", since both words appear in one sentence of paragraph 5. Milo 19:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- This is a clear analysis and as someone who hasn't closely followed the evolution of this article it's instructive. The definition that I intended was "the art of persuasion through language. Rhetoric can describe a persuasive way in which one relates a theme or idea in an effort to convince." In a word, Sophism. For example, when Johnathan Swift advocated eating the children of the poor to reduce the poverty problem and if there were a category termed Category:People who have practiced or advocated cannibalism without this type of exclusion he would belong.
- Another test add to the list Amateur rocketeers, seems to fit this mold, though I haven't examined it closely. To me, using the term cult to refer to hobbyists or a subculture is sloppy thinking and a way to make an interesting headline, yet I don't think this falls within the 'fans of popular culture' exclusion rule. If this list is mean to literally include every reliable source use of the term 'cult' in describing a group then I think that we'll get a lot of headline grabbers and opinion column usages (e.g. 'the cult of neoconservatives/environmentalists/etc.'). Antonrojo 03:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- • I use "rhetorical" to refer to the flowing qualities of language. Meaning, does it sound good while flowing smoothly from one idea to the next, with the net effect of persuasion that you described. However, as the Rhetoric article also mentions, I think that your brief description above, transitions to another meaning of "rhetorical" as a synonym for "sophism", the philosophy. Then I infer from your example, a further transition to "sophistry" in its pejorative sense, such as fooling the people with slick but empty political talk.
- I think if you are using the term "rhetorical" to characterize editorials or other text as good-sounding distraction or deception, then that leaves a dictionary void for describing equally good-sounding insights to contextual truth. I personally don't use "rhetorical" that way, possibly because my mentors didn't do so, perhaps to avoid having the overloaded meanings lead to misunderstanding.
- IIRC, there was something in the Rhetoric article about the combined role of rhetoric and dialectic, which I didn't have time to parse. Maybe they referred to use of a foundation of dialectically "true" facts (ouch), which are then persuaded by using good-sounding rhetoric. Or maybe Rhetoric didn't say that, but anyway, that's what I try to do. Perhaps this combination is central to pedagogical ethics?
- • I vetted Amateur rocketeers ("A Cult of Backyard Rocketeers Keeps the Solid Fuel Burning" - NYT, 2006-10-14). Again, this was not a challenge, my judgment being it's conclusively a fan cult of popular culture - space fans of one stripe or another. The last line of the article reads:
"The Sony Playstation motto is, 'Leave your world here and play in ours,' " Mr. Reese said of a more ubiquitous teenage pastime. "But why leave this world when you can hang out with a bunch of nerds and play with rockets in the middle of the desert?"
- I think it does not qualify for continued listing at LOGRTAC, yet the Macintosh threat cultists (maybe that's a still better name to distinguish them from Mac users and Mac fan-cultists?), do qualify.
- Let's see how other editors vet these two.
- • Actually, the rules do allow for listing non-government political cults. LaRouche is there. The Republicans would still be there, were it not for the 1920+ rule Milo 08:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Poll votes
Please vote Y or N for editorial sources exclusion: ("Y" means want a new rule: exclude editorials. "N" means back to the old rules; editorials are ok sources. Please enter long comments in previous Comments section above the line).
N - Dumb, dumber, dumbest. See longer comment above. Milo 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Eh. Do we have to have a poll? If we do then I'd say no. Editorials, aka opinion pieces, that are run in respectable newspapers and are are subject to libel constraints and corporate oversight, should be allowed. Editorials are the expression of the newspaper's opinions and are as notable as the reporters' opinions, which we otherwise allow. -Will Beback · † · 11:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
N - As Will Beback most succinctly and persuasively pointed out above, "All sources can be POV. It's only Wikipedia that we expect to be NPOV". Besides, the purpose of this page is to register instances where groups have been referred to as cults, not to prove that a particular group is a cult. As to whether editorials can "circumvent the fact-checking process", this is really IMHO irrelevant. Whether the piece is an editorial or a report, labelling a group as a cult is at heart an expression of one's opinion or point of view and not a statement of fact, and therefore essentially impervious to allegations of libel; so-called 'fact-checking' in the media does not require a standard of truth but only that of reasonable belief and/or fair comment without malice. See my comments at end of the "Wikipedia on list?" section above. --- Really Spooky 15:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the exclusion of editorials (op ed pieces) should remain part of the rules. Editorials are actually not the newspaper's opinion. They are the personal (and therefore possibly unsubstantiated) opinion of the author of the editorial. If we admit editorials, then anyone's personal opinion can get something listed here, which certainly is non-encyclopedic. Besides, admitting that sort of source would mean the list could easily grow beyond all recognition (or usefulness). You'd have every single major religion listed here, because they've all been called a cult at some time or another, not to mention a vast number of things/organizations that somebody (who may have only the vaguest grasp of the meaning of the word "cult") thought it would be cool to insult by calling a cult in print. "Letters to the Editor" are editorials; are we going to include those as reliable sources? Editorial cartoons? This seems to me to be a sensible restriction... --Bookgrrl 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum - if the only reason for this proposed change (exclusion of editorials) is to get Wikipedia removed from the list, as asserted above, then I veto the change. I don't like that as a motivation. --Bookgrrl 17:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- See [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#A_rationale_for_not_including_editorial_sources] for my rationale which I think is more substantive than that. Antonrojo 16:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
N cairoi 06:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Y as proposing editor. Antonrojo 16:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Polling authority debate
No polls, please. Discuss the subject and reach consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Bzzt. You can't say "no polls", that's beyond your authority.
- • OTOH, you are within Wikiguide WP:POLL #Creating a survey to request that we spend a week consensing the nature of the survey. To do so would be amazingly obstructionist of you, and I don't know why you would want to do something like that.
- • The "Y" & "N" polling system here was set up by a widely respected editor of this page, cairoi. Until now everyone has either been happy with it or said nothing. Unless there is a reasonable claim that polling consensus has expired, why not continue with polling that has been well used here and not abused, in my best understanding of WP:POLL...?
- • Fortunately, the WP:POLL guide isn't yet policy, so editors here are free to ignore you, and vote the poll if they wish. Or not vote and just state an opinion that sounds a lot like a vote. Or do anything else within Wikiquette. Like yourself, the cult topics editors are very well educated, highly intelligent, and committed to the facile study and use of written words — usually as applied to codes of morality and ethics. While they vary in their willingness to be persuaded, none of them like being bossed around, and especially without written authority.
- • Now how's about you back off nicely, and we get back to the important subject complete with poll votes for those who desire one. I promise to consider your opinion on its merits. Milo 17:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- "No polls, please", was not made under any type of authority, just my opinion. Polls should be used sparingly and only to gauge consensus, not to build one. To build consensus you discuss, not vote. See Wikipedia:Polls_are_evil ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- And I would really appreciate if you stop making comments such as "back off nicely" and your comments about the morality of editors. These type of comments are unnecessary and inappropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and according to the following meta-wiki essay: polling is evil. Decisions should be made by consensus decision making rather than a strict majority rule.
(from Wikipedia:Straw polls) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Polls seem to me to provide a way of testing for concensus after discussion. As such they fill part of the consensus flow chart found at consensus decision making. Especially on this list discussions can run in circles endlessly rehashing the same ideas in different ways with different words. It's good to check periodically that we're not wasting our time. cairoi 06:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LOGTARC?
I have deleted that redirect. Such "navigation aids" should not be used in the article namespace. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- You'll have to prove that you have the authority to do that. If that's just your opinion, the guide says my opinion is better than yours. Here's the guide that you seem to be violating:
-
However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
-
5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
- Call. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If not...
- What cards have you got? Milo 16:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- The article namespace cannot be used the same way we create shortcuts for the Wikipedia namespace. Redirects are designed to assist users in finding information when they type an article name. See Wikipedia:Redirect#What_do_we_use_redirects_for.3F. LOGTARC is not a known abbreviation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- As for your question about "authority", the answers is yes, I have authority to delete noncompliant article redirects from thae article namespace. If you want to contest this, you can place an inquiry at WP:ANI, or ask other admins involved in this article, such as Will Beback about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mary Kay on list?
The link given to show that the Asia Pacific Post called Mary Kay a cult actually links to a weblog which has an excerpt of the article and a new title so the source of the allegation is the typepad.com blog. Here's a google cache link to the original article which does not call the company a cult [16] Antonrojo 18:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, this was investigated previously in § Wikipedia, Mary Kay, as cults above. Congratulations on finding the Google cache copy. I had looked at the APA site and the Internet Archive, but it hadn't occurred to me that Google would still have an unexpired copy.
- So, it was BrandNoise (brandnoise.typepad.com) that called Mary Kay a cult in the replacement title, which counts, but publisher ScenarioDNA.com has to be a reliable source to use it at LOGRTAC. I searched around, but only came up with two names associated with BrandNoise/ScenarioDNA.com: Marie Lena Tupot and Tim Stock. ScenarioDNA.com calls itself a boutique[17], and is likely a slick mom and pop shop with a phone receptionist, offering hipster ad/market consulting.
- In the absence of a sizable staff for conventional fact checking, no promoted process for innovative fact checking, and no plausible expertise in non-fan-cults, (they do appear to be expert in fan-cults), I'd judge BrandNoise to not be a reliable source for what they write about non-fan-cults. OTOH, the archived parts of reliable source articles, like the APA's Mary Kay article, make BrandNoise a partly reliable website similar to Rick Ross — just not usable in this particular case. Milo 14:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Restoration of original criteria and Wikipedia reference
Antonrojo, I note that you included your self-proposed "editorial exclusion" rule despite the fact that the consensus above was to reject the proposal. Then you removed Wikipedia from the list under your rejected rule, even though the only editor to voice tentative support for the rule said that s/he did not agree if the primary motivation was to remove Wikipedia the list. That is why I have reverted these changes. Please build consensus before making such changes, particular on a controversial page like this where you see several other editors objecting.
For the record I also disagree with the idea of creating a new rule just to get Wikipedia off the page. Such references are in fact useful as they demonstrate the media are often rather glib about how they use the 'cult' label. ---- Really Spooky 02:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Really Spooky, I had missed the rather extensive discussion regarding the rule. See the talk section here for my rationale which shows why I think the problem is deeper then excluding WP from the list. So lesson learned: survival of an edit for a while does not imply consensus. Antonrojo 15:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re-orginization
Since there's more than one definition of the word cult why don't we divide the page into different sections to encompass all these meanings? I think this would cut down on the revision wars and would also make the page more useful and interesting. My suggestions are:
Religious Cults (Negative) - This would cover the modern negative meaning of the word cult that refers to religious groups. This section is always going to be problematic as the word doesn't have a solid meaning and is mostly just an insult.
Religious Cults (Neutral) - This would cover the old meaning of the word cult and include groups like the Cult of Mary.
Fancults - Things like Wikipedia and "The Cult of Mac".
Personality Cults - Kim Jong-il, Stalin, Mao Zedong, etc...
Counter-culture - Any counter-culture groups that call themselves cults. Cult of the Dead Cow, Subgenius...
Fictional Cults - Any of the above types of cults but fictional.
Yes, I know this wont get rid the controversy inherent in this page, but I think it would make a more complete List of groups referred to as cults. Anybody else like this idea? Thoughts on organization? --Calibas 01:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is such a good idea that if the world were perfect it would be the right way to go. However, I think that if you look in the archives, it has been tried so many times in so many ways that there isn't a snowballs chance that it'll actually happen. You were right in identifying the Negative Religious cults as the problem since that requires asserting a POV. cairoi 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, saying something is a cult in the negative sense is asserting a POV, but that's why this article is called 'List of groups referred to as cults' not 'List of cults'. Wikipedia tries to ecompass all commonly held points of view and this article doesn't do that. In fact, it this article doesn't even mention some of the groups, religious or otherwise, most commonly called cults. If this page is a list that "serves only to aggregate a sampling of references to facilitate further research", why is so much left out? I think the real reason for all these silly rules is because we all know what a mess this page will turn into if we make it into a real 'List of groups referred to as cults' instead of a 'List of religious groups formed after 1920 referred to as cults in the past 50 years'. I personally welcome the chaos, I think some interesting data could eventually result from this page.
- If you don't want to be an editor on a page that gets changed fifty times a day, I would drop this article from your watchlist. Simply changing the inclusion criteria to remove most of the controversy from a controversial subject is, in my opinion, going against what Wikipedia is about. It's my point of view that what is included on this page is simply the editors point of view, confirmed by vote, and not public opinion. I can provide references from plenty of major newspapers if you guys don't believe me. --Calibas 01:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Good luck with that. cairoi 05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Actually why not change the name of the list to "List of groups ever referred to as cults" I think that would be interesting. cairoi 06:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- • "encompass all these meanings" Close enough to your proposal, there is encyclopedic value (IMHO) to a new list article for notable Fancults, Personality Cults, Counter-culture cults, and Fictional Cults. Beyond that, if you really must list the "public opinion" religious cults not listed here, my friendly suggestion is to create a pre-1800 exclusion rule to avoid listing the major religions as cults (and a post-1920 exclusion rule to avoid charges of article duplication). I don't recommend it, but if you must push the envelope into chaos as you suggest, you could WP:BOLDly create an article with a rule set which is the inverse of that at LOGRTAC. It would thus list every c-u-l-t that is excluded by rule here. It would also educate you without the need for rearguing every debate in the LOGRTAC archives (plus the schadenfreund entertainment value).
- • "cut down on the revision wars " ... "welcome the chaos" What is your plan for achieving these goals simultaneously?
-
{I'm genuinely intrigued by the possibilities for attaining such a state: Vajrayana Buddhism? Entheogens? Discordian meditation? Having achieved this enlightened or merely altered state, would editors here feel mindlessly compelled to form a cult? What would we name it? By mass begging at other web sites, could we persuade Salon.com to investigate us, so we could list ourselves at LOGRTAC?}
- Milo 11:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Okay, I'm going to stop being dishonest. All of my previous suggestions were simply intended to destroy this page, not improve it.
- My point of view is that 90% of the time somebody says that X is referred to as Y it's because it's that person's opinion that X really is Y. Saying X is referred to as Y is a way of making your opinion sound like objective fact. Most of the references on this page do this, and this page repeats their opinions.
- While the more erudite among us may see this page as a tool for tracking religious intolerance, I feel that most people will see this page as a list of cults (in the negative sense of the word). Try walking into a random church and saying, "Your religion is referred to as a cult". Don't worry, you're just stating an objective fact, not actually calling thier group a cult, I'm sure they'll understand.
- My proposal is to move all the religious groups here to the List_of_new_religious_movements and to make this page a list of groups referred to as cults minus the negative, religious sense of the word. If none of the other editors agree with me I'm going to shut up now (or maybe not, I change my mind a lot). --Calibas 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Alternative Proposal
I must admit Calibas's idea is intriguing, but perhaps in another context, as it misses the purpose of this page, which is to track references to groups as "cults", and not to identify this or that group definitively as a cult. The current subheading classification is focused on the source rather than the target of the reference and to my mind it is a very useful resource for that reason. In particular, it demonstrates that the media is far more liberal in its use of the 'cult' label than academics.
I would like to propose an alternative, more modest modification, namely to include and populate new subheadings within this list entitled
Groups referred to as "cult" by the anti-cult movement and
Groups referred to as "cult" by other religious groups.
I believe this could have the dual benefit of keeping the scope of the page wide whilst addressing the concerns of those who feel it is being 'watered down' by the inclusion of organisations such as Wikipedia, Mary Kay etc. Such an approach might also also allow us in time to dipense with the complex inclusion rules, which many on this page find to be somewhat arbitary. --Really Spooky 18:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] rv
Milo, please take greater care:
1. As to the change of title from "Exclusive to 1995 French report" to "French Government Report...". First, the report is not a government report, it is only report prepared by a minority of MPs. Second, by removing the 'exclusive to' qualification the page is likely to become ridiculous unwieldy given the report labels nearly 200 groups as 'cults'. It also appears that you changed this qualification to justify putting Hare Krishna back on the list.
2. "Amateur rocketeers" meet the inclusion criteria. Whatever a 'fancult of popular culture' is, it certainly does not include a small cohesive group engaged in collective non-mainstream activities. I have changed the name to Tripoli Rocketry Association (the subject of the article), however, so this is clearer.
3. The change of "Macintosh users" to "Macintosh nonfancult threat users" is IMHO unintelligible to the average reader and in any event POV. Best to stick with what the article says rather than trying to import one's own distinctions. Really Spooky 00:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I changed the name to "The Cult of Mac", since that is what the source calls it. -Will Beback · † · 01:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- • "the report is not a government report" That's just plain-text wrong. Quote Cults and governments: "the French government created a Parliamentary commission".
- • "by removing the 'exclusive to' qualification the page is likely to become ridiculous unwieldy" 'Exclusive to' doesn't control that concern. All the 150+ FR-listed "organization-mothers" that are eligible (only 1920+ are) could be placed on the LOGRTAC page, with or without that 'exclusive to'. I've checked the estimated technical statistics, and even with duplicates whose status might be confused by 'exclusive to', I'm not concerned at the moment.
- However, FR was the first wave of an expansion of LOGRTAC as more non-Anglo government listings arrive. Eventually the volume may become a technical problem to be solved, and I'm sure that editors here will rise to the challenge.
- • "It also appears that you changed this qualification to justify putting Hare Krishna back on the list." No. The Krishna "sectes" orgs belong in FR no matter what the title; as well, the Krishna "cults" orgs belong where they are in media references. But as Sfacets edit summary suggested, the phrase 'exclusive to' doesn't transparently make sense, where Krishnas are mentioned in different places (media "cults" and also FR "sectes"). "Exclusive to" was a phrase and subsection boldly created by an editor at a time when there was no consensus about how to solve the problems caused by mixing Anglo "cults" with FR "sectes". "Exclusive to" effectively meant 'separation of' (cults from sectes). It did solve the problems, and I assume no one wanted to re-edit a stand-aside consensus that was working, merely because the subtitle phrasing was somewhat ambiguous.
- With the arrival of the Austrian government listings, "Exclusive to" has clearly become obsolete. That needed FR-subtitle change provided an opportunity to standardly label the opening phrase for the additional foreign government subsections that are expected eventually (French government..., Austrian government..., German government..., ROC government..., etc).
- • Here's what my FR header edit looked like:
- French government Report, Cults in France
-
For more details on this topic, see Parliamentary Commission about Cults in France, a.k.a the "French Report" (FR) , 1995. The title in French is
-
RAPPORT -
FAIT -
AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION D'ENQUÊTE (1) SUR LES SECTES :
- France's 1995 parliamentary commission report (unofficial English translation Report, Cults in France), published a list of purported cults compiled by the general information division of the French National Police (Renseignements généraux) with the help of cult-watching groups.
- If you only objected to the section subtitle and maybe the Krishna re-listings, why didn't you selectively edit instead of reverting all of my other editing work (including unrelated minor edits)? If you can't justify reverting every single one of my edits (diff here), including the hidden comment extension to help newbie editors, then please take greater care to not violate Wikiquette in the future. Milo 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, Milo, you're right -- I must have overlooked the minor edits. As for the substantive points you raise, it looks like this page has already moved beyond all that now, so I'll save my wrists for any new controversies that may arise. PS - Happy Xmas (or whatever holiday your cult celebrates)! :D -- Really Spooky 18:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I appreciate and accept the apology, and will assume your good faith.
- • I also appreciate the good work that you did to add the large groups list from within the French Report to the LOGRTAC FR section. It was timely. Together with Smeelgova's creation of the stub Austrian list section, these adds open a new chapter in the history of List of groups referred to as cults. For better or worse, cultic phenomena are global, and it makes no sense that LOGRTAC should remain Anglocentric. As a practical matter of article politics (consider the multi-AfDs here), the larger the list and the more the subsections, the less any one group will stand out or feel besmirched by close association with the 10-some destructive cults, or other groups that are notorious for their legal entanglements.
- • Seasons Greetings to you also, as well as to other editors. Xmas it formally is for me, though I'm informally a Jeffersonian universalist who accepts the validity of all sincere higher beliefs in deity, and/or philosophical ethics and morality, that do not infringe on civil government, honest science, or the global consensus of least-repressive tolerance for minorities; yet, with cautiously enforced human rights for all individuals, including the fundamental right to freely convert beliefs without coercion or fear of reprisal. (Did I balance that statement carefully enough?) In short, I mostly agree with the conclusions of the French Report. I consider it a vital document for understanding what I call 'the global citizens mandate', for unobtrusive government cult-watching in proportion to reasonable cause (i.e., "probable cause" in the USA). That means cults who get along with their neighbors (I estimate only 2-4% don't), bear little or no watching.
- • P.S. if I had carpal tunnel syndrome, or hints of its onset, I'd try mega B6 in a matrix of other megavitamins and minerals — they all work together. (Purchased at a health food store, not a drug store or chain store.) B6 has worked for a lot of people, though no guarantee. There is web documentation on reported upper limits to use of mega B6. Milo 13:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Peoples Temple Jones cult apology
- I'll take this seasonal opportunity to become a cult apologist, with an added junior homonym definition that supports an actual cult apology.
- • My cult and the Peoples Temple Jones cult were once in the same siblinghood, so I apologize to other cults, NRMs, governments, global citizens, and members' families for misbehavior by my late brethren, leading to locally apocalyptic consequences in Guyana. In addition to the families' direct loss due to provoked suicide and murder, I think that Jones' insane behavior unnecessarily accelerated an increasing global fear of cults and NRMs, especially by frightened governments. As we all now know, governments and their employees do fear groups and individuals who are armed, dangerous, and totally fearless of death.
- • Despite what one may infer by association, Preacher Jim Jones was originally a much loved and apparently good man with a popular social gospel message that uplifted the urban poor and racially discriminated people. Unfortunately, Jones later showed evidence of having been a repressed gay, and he probably took to drugs to suppress his gay feelings, or suppress typically tortured feelings about their inconsistency with Pauline doctrine. Whatever the original cause, many now assume the drugs fueled a mental illness of paranoia, which gradually drove him insane. If the speculated irony reported by Wikipedia is true, Jones may have become the murder victim of his own paranoias by his elevation of other paranoid members to positions of power with guns. I'm told that Jones was in a process of being defrocked due to insanity at the time of the legendary 1978 Jonestown, Guyana tragedy.
- • Distressed global citizens had long pressed the 60's-70's cult debate toward government action, but the death of USA-California Congressman Leo Ryan propelled world governments to act, and eventually prime-motivated the French Report that we are editing this day.
- • For those with a forgiveness belief system, I request forgiveness in the spiritual realm for Preacher Jim Jones and the suicidal consequences of his insanity illness to 900-some Peoples Temple members and their families, as well as forgiveness for those misguided followers, who orchestrated mass suicides and committed murders of outsiders that shook the world.
- • Beyond forgivness is prevention. I've been doing what little I can to promote cult topics reporting at Wikipedia. That includes reporting media cult references and government cult-watching lists. Groups referred to as cults don't like this, but global citizens want the information, and they point to Jonestown and worse (Aum Shinrikyo) as compelling reasons for them to be so informed or at least warned by others who are informed.
- • At the same time, I'm well-aware of the need for balance and preservation of religious and civil rights. From at least the time of the Code of Hammurabi, learned scholars have believed that law-based decisions promote equality of justice, and some perception of fairness if not satisfaction with government. Therefore, I also do what little I can to promote non-arbitrary consensed rules for deciding which groups to list at LOGRTAC.
- • When editors follow those rules, LOGRTAC works. When doubting editors inquire or research the Archives for why a consensus exists for certain odd-looking rules, then LOGRTAC works, even if the rule needs a consensus update. The alternative of arbitrary rule breaking, which is happening currently, will return the article to the editing and debate chaos documented in the LOGRTAC Archives.
- • However, one editor said s/he likes chaos, apparently because s/he and others don't believe in LOGRTAC cult reference reporting. I disagree, but all I can do is tell them that I want to help prevent another future editor like me, from feeling the need to apologize for some future Jonestown-style cult destruction. Milo 13:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] France and Austria
I have corrected a very poor translation/interpretation of the French circulaire.
The French report contain 40 175 groups, but we are listing only a few. Austria has 200 groups labeled as "sects" but we do the same.
Either we list all, or we list none. Selective listing is not accurate.
Marked as factually inaccurately.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't think it has to be "all or none". Many lists in Wikipedia are restricted to "notable" instances. But if you want to add more I don't have an objection. -Will Beback · † · 15:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Another option, if the "all" seems too many, would be to list those groups that appear on both lists. -Will Beback · † · 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- The French list is obsolete and the Austrian list maybe not, so that would not work. My proposal is as follows:
- Move the French section to the Parliamentary Commission about Cults in France
- Move the Austrian section to a new article about Austria and their commissions.
- Mention these articles in a "See also" section
- ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- The French list is obsolete and the Austrian list maybe not, so that would not work. My proposal is as follows:
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 174, to be exact. Actually, on second thought I think I like Jossi and Sfacets' insistence on including the entire list for accuracy. It goes to show just what nutters those French parliamentarians are: they seem to think that everyone but the three Great Monotheistic Religions are cults, including humanists, survivalists and industrial arts clubs. -- Really Spooky 18:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need the "disputed" tag. Simply add more additions to the list as resources permit, and until then, there will simply be a need for it to be populated. Smeelgova 22:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
- 174, to be exact. Actually, on second thought I think I like Jossi and Sfacets' insistence on including the entire list for accuracy. It goes to show just what nutters those French parliamentarians are: they seem to think that everyone but the three Great Monotheistic Religions are cults, including humanists, survivalists and industrial arts clubs. -- Really Spooky 18:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
This is the source: "Sekten : Wissen schützt. Eine Information des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie, Stubenbastei 5, 1010 Wien, 1996 (Sects : Knowledge protects. Information from the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth and the Family, Stubenbastei 5, 1010 Wien, 1996). If someone can gain access to it, the full list can be presented, rather than the mismash of the US gov reports that is not complete. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. On the other hand, the "mishmash" comes from a reliable source, that is cited multiple times in repeating years. Smeelgova 22:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
- The problem with these sources, Smeelgova, is that it is not clear (at least to me) that they refer to a list of sects that the Austrian government may have published. The wording on these reports does not give me enough confidence to assert it as a fact, as the report is about the treatment of religious organizations by the Austrain government in general, and noty specifically about "sectes". I would suggest deleting this section altogether until such a time we can find sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- For example, the 2005 report states:
- "The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government are small organizations with fewer than 100 members. Among the larger groups is the Church of Scientology, with between 5,000 and 6,000 members, and the Unification Church, with approximately 700 adherents throughout the country. Other groups found in the country include Divine Light Mission, Eckankar, Hare Krishna, the Holosophic community, the Osho movement, Sahaja Yoga, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, Landmark Education, the Center for Experimental Society Formation, Fiat Lux, Universal Life, and The Family. "
- I am not sure that the text "Other groups found...." is related to sectes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- For example, the 2005 report states:
-
-
-
-
- There's usually nothing wrong with using secondary sources, such as "the Austrian list as reported by the U.S. State Dept." -Will Beback · † · 23:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I agree, Will. But that is not what I am saying... The problem with the US gov reports is that it is not clear that the groups listed in the report are in the list by the Austrian "Information from the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth and the Family" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Include or exclude USDS-IRFR-Austria prior reports?
- I have changed the wording of the subsection to refer to the specifically referenced United States International Religious Freedom Report on Austria. Smeelgova 09:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
-
- I have re-edited that section, with accurate information and removing the mentions to older reports. We need just a good source for the material, and the sources provided are sufficient. Also note that all the deleted references are copies of the reports in about.com. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Edit history — here are the edit/rm/rv/rv edit summaries:
- Revision as of 2006-12-24T07:02:24 Smeelgova (?Austria - [...], add previous reports.)
[See "The edit text" below]
- Revision as of 2006-12-24T16:44:18 Jossi (?Austria - rm unecessary)
- Revision as of 2006-12-24T20:34:15 Milomedes (?Austria - rv to last ver by Smeelgova - 1999-2005 prior USDS "International Religious Freedom Report on Austria" looks like valuable info for a 50-year reporting window; [...])
- Revision as of 2006-12-24T20:43:53 Jossi ([...] My edit provides the necessary sources and removed speculative information)
The edit text:
- The United States Department of State had similar sections in its International Religious Freedom Report on Austria, in 1999[1], 2000[2], the 2002[3], the 2003[4], the 2004[5], and 2005[6].
The edit also creates the following references:
- ^ Religious Freedom Report 1999, Austria, Section I. Freedom of Religion.
- ^ Religious Freedom Report 2000, Austria, Section I. Freedom of Religion.
- ^ Religious Freedom Report 2002, Austria, Section I. Freedom of Religion.
- ^ Religious Freedom Report 2003, Austria, Section I. Religious Demography.
- ^ Religious Freedom Report 2004, Austria, Section I. Religious Demography.
- ^ Religious Freedom Report 2005, Austria, Section I. Religious Demography.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Posted by Milo 08:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
More comments
I haven't yet drawn a conclusion on this issue. This is a lot of careful edit work by Smeelgova to merely delete without careful consideration of its merits. I had the latter happen to me recently, and that experience made me not want to contribute any carefully detailed work to the encyclopedia project. So first, I want to know why Smeelgova posted these prior year report links.
• "all the deleted references are copies of the reports in about.com" I don't see how that's relevant. Whatever About.com has is an archive of a reliable source, like the Rick Ross archives, and in any case, U.S. government reports are public domain.
• "speculative information" I think you are referring to whether the Austrians were listing "sekten" to mean "cults". One way to handle this is ask for more opinions about the U.S. report, including asking for the State Department's own opinion. Another is to ask the Austrian government if that original report is on the web somewhere.
- From comments above this subhead:
• "obsolete" Nothing listed at LOGRTAC is obsolete until it's 50 years old. It immediately ocurred to me that the lists in the prior years may have changed. If they have, the prior deleted references are listable here, plus the context and date of any group deletion by government should be available to researchers if they are willing to search the sources. Both things are respectively fair to one side or another.
• "Either we list all, or we list none." That's a dicotomizing notion that I don't consense. Among other issues, LOGRTAC has its own filter that excludes pre-1920 groups. So it can't be 'all', and 'none' does not fulfill the article mandate.
• "Selective listing is not accurate." Sociology and politics are not hard sciences, so that's what footnotes and disclaimers are for. Milo 08:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- It would be appreciated if you make your comments shorter and to the point. I do cannot follow what you are saying above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] French Report
I'm not sure if I'm happy with the conflict the French Report is having with the stated guidelines. The guidelines indicate that groups on the list must have formed since 1920. The French report section is still part of this list and as such should comply with the guidelines. Or the guidelines should be changed to suit the consensus. I'm also not sure that I'd be happy with a change to the 1920's rule which was designed to reign in overexhuberance which the French Government admitted to in publishing it's report. cairoi 08:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, yes. Without the 1920+ rule, supporters of the Catholics, Baptists, Quakers, Sunis, Shia, Witnesses, Rosicrucians, Mormons, Christian Science, and more will be pressing for another AfD. I and most of the other editors had enough of that major religion as "cult" farce last summer.
- I'd like to number that "organization-mothers" list from FR, then replace each ineligible with a square bracketed phrase like "[founded 1842]" or "[founded before 1920]". This would prevent confusion and allow verification that every group delisted was legitimately removed by rule rather than being spirited off the list. Milo 11:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea. cairoi 19:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal
Another, better option is to move these sections to other articles. We can move the French stuff to the most appropriate article: Parliamentary Commission about Cults in France, and the Austria text to Cults and governments#Austria. And have keep in that section a short paragraph on each with a wikilink to the respective article. Unless there are any substantial and well argued points against this proposal, I will implement it in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- The overall purpose of this article is to list groups that have been referred to as cults by legitimate sources. The list is improved by having more sources. I think that splitting off sources into their own articles would weaken the article. -Will Beback · † · 17:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- But wouldn't it be a better place to place these at the corresponding articles? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Why? Those aren't "lists of groups referred to as cults". In particular, the Cults and governments#Austria seems like a very poor fit. Even the French list makes more sense here, as this is the compendium list. -Will Beback · † · 20:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Parliamentary Commission about Cults in France is the commission that produced that report. It surely fits there better than here. We can have a summary and a wikilink. This will avoid many problems which have been described by different users recently. As for the Austria report, once we find the list of 200 groups, we can do the same. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- It makes sense to me to put these lists from the reports in the articles about the reports, and then just link to them here. In fact, I thought it was sufficient to just link to the reports themselves; the main reason I put the entire French list in in the first place was because of complaints that it was that the article only quoted from selectively. Having done so, however, I see one side benefit - it allows readers to quickly wikilink to the articles about those groups (Wait, is that now an argument for keeping it here? :)). Really Spooky 22:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There is no article on the Austrian report, just a mention in another article. The French report may have an article, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the "List of groups referred to as cults", unless we want to change the title to "List of groups referred to as cults except by government reports". I do think that it may make sense to re-integrate the lists to reduce duplication. -Will Beback · † · 22:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This may be one of the rare circumstances when it's worthwhile to duplicate content. It's valuable to have the list here, but it also makes the other article more complete. -Will Beback · † · 07:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(reset)
This issue is very important, so I have a lot to write about it.
• The future reporting strength and research popularity of List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC) depends on integration of the foreign listings. If you believe that Wikipedia should be a world-class reference tool, this article is one of the important ones to develop and promote as part of the growing cult topics family of articles. I recall that someone declared it one of the best referenced articles in the encyclopedia. That's why I've put so much time into what was originally only another editing interest. Call it buying into the cult rightness of the purported non-fancult Wikipedia if you like, but more likely it's my small contribution to the vitality of truth-to-power global journalism.
• I agree with Will about maintaining a compendium list, and Spooky about the one-click research convenience.
• For a variety of convenience and AfD survival-politics reasons, as well as fairness to the listed groups (obscurity in large numbers), LOGRTAC should not be split up (but should have a variety of sublists, that I, Spooky, and others have proposed). As for mentioned problems, there has been no opportunity to deal with them in a orderly debate. Furthermore, editors here have been planning ahead for a long time for the arrival of new foreign listings; the archives contain many related debates. In particular, the dictionary work that Gimmetrow started, and that I and others continued to develop, is part of the preparation for foreign listings. There is now available a semifinished set of rules linking foreign words and phrases to the master use and non-excluded meanings of "cult" in North American English, as fully justified by the global spread of the North American "cult" terminology.
• Most importantly, this proposal isn't politic, and cult reference reporting opponents will claim it is unencyclopedic — with some justification based on previous criticism. What makes LOGRTAC an acceptable repository for these lists, is the NPOV rules that balance the several POV interests of reporting proponents with the several POV interests opposed to reporting. Placing these lists in articles without such rules will likely cause them to be deleted, or the articles themselves to be AfD'd — for all the reasons and strongly held opinions presented in the four archived AfDs of LOGRTAC. Like the symbiosis of flowers and bees, I have the strong impression that these lists cannot exist at Wikipedia if they are separated from the rules.
• It is only by the very hard debate work of multiple "generations" of LOGRTAC editors that a reasonable degree of NPOV by rule has been achieved here. Most of it occurred long before my time, but I promote the collective wisdom of the many minds who achieved this reporting balance, principally focused on the indisputable validity of references as an NPOV tool. To my philosophical delight, it turns out that if one is opposed to references, one is opposed to encyclopedias, and so becomes self-canceling as a POV warrior.
• IMHO, these rules are always under attack by POV interests who want to change them in order to 'win' some cult apostasy or NRM/mainstream competitive struggle, by the proxy of being able to point to the presence or absence of a particular group's listing. There is also simple entropy as new editors test each of these rules for necessity, not understanding why the rules can't just be more simple. The current most serious problem is some editors are acting out arbitrary opinions about listings, which aren't in accord with the consensed rules.
• Despite their success, cult topics editors have discovered how difficult it is to propagate these NPOV rules to other articles and categories. Furthermore, the rules are still in excessively rough language and don't read smoothly for good propagation. Most editors were, I assume, tired after the current principles were consensed, and didn't finish up with the wording, phrasing, and preamble phase. Propagation may eventually be possible, but in the meantime LOGRTAC is uniquely qualified to vet, list, and maintain these very controversial lists.
• LOGRTAC may eventually run out of kilobyte space as the sublists from many countries continue to arrive. But currently there is not a kilobyte problem, and there remains an important need to develop improved integrated rules for handling lists in foreign languages for English language cult topics researchers, in a way compatible with English Wikipedia. I think that this can be done in a reasonably language-transparent way, given enough editors who have a global compendium list vision. I do. Milo 12:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would also appreciate if you avoid making comments about the intentions of other editors. These type of comments add nothing to the discussion, you know? If you wish, speak about your intentions, that would be enough.
- As I can see that there is only partial support for my proposal, and as I am convinced based in my experience in Wikipedia that the best place for the Frech commission list is the French commission article and not here, I will place an RfC so that other editors can help us in this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Editor intentions example posted by Calibas 03:36, 18 Dec 2006: "Okay, I'm going to stop being dishonest. All of my previous suggestions were simply intended to destroy this page, not improve it."
- More so than most articles, the intentions of editors are central to the formation of consensus in the ongoing LOGRTAC debates. Calibas' anti-article intention isn't unusual — it's a long-time openly expressed or covertly constructed behavior by some editors here. Intention issues being firmly on-topic, I feel obligated to consider and comment on them. This adds utility to the discussion, because I have regularly proposed consensus rules to meet opponents' objections and plan for the future. Some of the resulting rules were successful in reducing controversy. I want to keep doing what worked previously, though I can't without the support of other editors.
- I oppose a suggestion to suppress discussion of intentions, because they represent many real-world POVs on cult-watching. I take your point that you disagree, and respectfully suggest that we leave it at agreeing to disagree. Milo 23:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Sorry, but you cannot bypass policy and accepted guidelines because "you feel obliged". See WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. These pages are not here to "reflect real world POVs", that is best left for discussion forums. So, drop it, OK?. Otherwise we will need to resort to refactoring off-topic comments and that is a pain the neck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I disagree with your interpretation and I can find no Wikiguide basis for it. No one was attacked. Everyone is acting in good faith. Other editors disagree with me, and with you, and with the existence of this article. They have every right to do so, and to have their issues openly discussed for consensus on this talk page. I can tolerate your disagreement with me. You should do likewise. Milo 04:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
(reset)
• If I understand your position, it means that you believe — that my long-standing editorial policy, of attempting to reconcile numerous editors' anti-article POV complaints, with a goal of preventing another LOGRTAC AfD — is off-topic. If so and as a remedy, you constructively plan to prevent me from seeking consensus with the powerful AfD opponents of this article, by refactoring my posts.
• If I correctly interpret your position, it is incompatible with Wikipedia community and consensus policies. AfDs are venomous affairs at best, so trying to prevent them by achieving content consensus is clearly on-topic and policy-aligned. Furthermore, I consense and practice fair-minded refactoring, but what you plan, I claim would be a form of censorship.
• Your position doesn't make Wikipolicy sense to me — so, what motivates it? Reference to the four now-LOGRTAC-AfDs is evidential. On 2004-07-02 was the first VfD (now AfD) of List of purported cults (now List of groups referred to as cults), and you were the delete nominator (diff) with your nominating post at AfD-1. Your vote remained "delete" on 2005-07-20 at AfD-2, but changed to "keep" on 2005-12-07 at AfD-3, and then changed back to "delete" on 2006-06-06 at AfD-4. (At the AfDs, page find "jossi".) Pjacobi did not vote AfD-1, but nominated LOGRTAC AfD-2 through AfD-4.
Certainly jossi and Pjacobi are by AfD record, the top two opponents of LOGRTAC. Each of you has been a nominator, and each has voted "delete" three times. Choosing between the two of you, on balance I think that as the original nominator, you have emerged as the number 1 opponent of the article currently titled List of groups referred to as cults.
• I don't question your good faith as a conscious attitude, but I think you may be displaying a strong subconscious bias resulting in a conflict of interest (COI). On its face, it appears that you could be subconsciously attempting to censor me in order to promote an agenda to depopulate (diff and see previous) and eventually AfD List of groups referred to as cults. Even if you don't have an actual subconscious bias, the appearance of your conflict of interest is unmistakable to me. It happens all the time, which is why the real world has rules to prevent COI and its seeming-so. Judges' canons of ethics require them to recuse themselves if there is merely an appearance of COI. The simple reason for this ethic is so people will trust judges and other honest brokers, whether they are really biased or not.
• Therefore, by COI-appearance you are unqualified to take any refactoring action which would attempt to prevent me from negotiating consensus with LOGRTAC's AfD-minded editors (including yourself) who represent real-world POV opponents. Your very strongly opposed opinion of my editorial policy is welcome as discussion and persuasion, but that's the limit of your mandate.
• On a purely philosophical level, I am honored to finally meet the debate leader of the worthy opposition to List of groups referred to as cults.
Now let's get back to editing work on your RfC. Milo 23:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- You are mistaken, Milo. I am not opposing this article today. I opposed this article in its previous incarnations when the criteria was not, in my view, solid enough, and was what we call in Wikipedia a "POV magnet." The article has evolved quite dramatically since these early days, and I believe that we are on the right track now. We all have our biases, Milo, and that is part of being human, I guess. And having biases are not necessarily a bad thing. The opportunity we have in WP, is to collaborate and create great, useful articles for our readers, despite out biases. So, as long as the discussions in these pages avoid poisoning the well, by describing our perceptions of the biases of others, we shall do pretty well. And if the comments about these perceptions recur, I will not hesitate in refactoring then from this page.
- As for the sections on governments, once we add the 200 groups listed in the Austrian report, and the lists from other countries, the article will become unwieldy, and the need to split it will become obvious. I am patient. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hmm... you voted "delete" only seven months ago on 2006-06-06. I began editing 2006-07-03, with a consistent editorial policy since then of openly discussing everyone's complaints, included my "perceptions of the biases of others" that you call "poisoning the well". As a practical matter, this article is nothing but reported biases, with legally and socially compelling reasons for reporting them. Describing our perceptions of the biases of others is what we do.
- But what's this? Now you claim to like the results at LOGRTAC. (Ok, I and the other consensing editors of the past six months thank you for the back-handed compliment.)
- Logically, then, you must be wrong about uncensored debate poisoning the well, so I call on other editors to support open debate policies — which I think they want to do anyway.
- Editors here are notoriously testy about expressing their POV — I recall Jiva has strong views about the bias of others here. No one likes censorship of their opinion. Just how many of us do you think you can censor before you get your wheel pulled? Milo 15:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am not talking about censoring. I am talking about talk-page discipline and avoiding violating our personal attacks policy. BTW, that would be my last comment on this issue. Let's focus on editing articles, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfC Summary
Should a list of purported cults published by the Parliamentary Commission about Cults in France, be placed in that article, or in this article, or in both places simultaneously? 16:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comments
[edit] NA
Narcotics Anonymous should be added to the list. It's derived from AA, and AA is on the list.
-
- It would still need a separate source naming it as a cult. Many groups are "rderived" from other groups, but their ancestry doesn't necesarily determine their nature. -Will Beback · † · 00:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Brahma Kumaris
I deleted Brahma Kumaris from the list of cults. There is an article in Wikipedia which defines it as a NRM. Moreover, the link provided as evidence [18]is not a reliable source. That article in Spanish does not mention the word "cult" at all.(Sect is the word used. Note the bias since Spain is strongly Catholic) The author of it is a Psychologist by profession which does not give him the scholar authority to write about this topic. Last but no least, the person who posted this link maliciously, was one of the main editors in the Brahma Kumaris article. This user posture was of defamation. After the arbitration procedure, this author's "partner in defamation" was banned for a year. There is a campaign by this author to continue defaming Brahma Kumaris across Wikipedia articles related with religion and the internet. [19] Best, avyakt7 19:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- See the explanation in the beginning of this article as to "Sects" and "Cults" in other languages. Furthermore, the heading for the link you provided is "Destructive Sects and Risk Groups". Doesn't seem that ambiguous to me. Smee 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
-
- Dear Smeelgova, This is is WIkipedia in English. "Sects" and "Cults" are different words, if they are considered the same in this article; those words are NOT the Same in Spanish. Besides, Brahma Kumaris is neither of them. Just take a look at the Wikipedia article. The website given as citation is not a reliable source. The Article in Wikipedia clearly states Brahma Kumaris is a NRM.. and Wikipedia itself states that "cult" is a word which needs to be avoided when referring to religious movements. It is not a matter of ambiguity here.. it is a matter of posting reliable sources to back up statements. Hope your spanish is good. Reverted again. Best, avyakt7 20:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Please read the inclusion criterion at the top of the article, long in place and stable: Inclusion is based on a single reference: (1) as a "cult" directly in North American English, a "sect" in British English or any equivalent foreign language word; - I will restore the reference one more time, but not keep reverting again... Smee 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
-
- Also see a bit above this under list for inclusion: "The groups must be referenced as a "cult" directly by sources that qualify according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. A reference may include the name of the cult if that cult includes the word "cult". That reference is not a reliable source. Best, avyakt7 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- That's exactly what the user was arguing, that the reference doesn't contain an "equivalent foreign language". Sfacets 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Uh, that Spanish somehow isn't an "equivalent foreign language"?? If user avyakt7 was arguing that, then avyakt7 is wrong. Spanish "SECTAS DESTRUCTIVAS..." literally translates as "destructive sects", and unambiguously means "cults" in English. An ambiguous "sectas" that might mean "denominations", would not be modified by "destructivas". Milo 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
As mentioned by avyakt7 (aka Riveros11), LOGRTAC editors should be aware of the recent Brahma Kumaris (BK) Arbitration Committee case:
-
-
-
4) Riveros11 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), who uses the signature avyakt7, is a "a current teacher of Brahma Kumaris" and has vigorously contested the content of
-
[Arbitration Committee] Passed 8 to 0 at 17:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- "link provided as evidence SECTAS DESTRUCTIVAS Y GRUPOS DE RIESGOis not a reliable source" This publisher source appears to be a college or professional school named, "Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Santa Cruz de Tenerife". If so, universities, colleges, and schools are presumed reliable. Otherwise, I think the burden of proof is on avyakt7 to prove that they are a disreputable school (like a diploma mill) who does not teach facts, or has a verifiable history, unrelated to this issue, of publishing facts without checking them.
- "author of it is a Psychologist by profession which does not give him the scholar authority to write about this topic" This reference doesn't appear to depend on the author's reliability by scholar authority to qualify as a reliable source. See above.
- " "Sects" and "Cults" are different words, if they are considered the same in this article; those words are NOT the Same in Spanish." Read the archives - we've had many debates about this. "Sect" and Spanish "secta" are accepted by consensus of rule 1, period.
- "Besides, Brahma Kumaris is neither of them." LOGRTAC's mission is to list the last 50 years of non-excluded reliable references to groups as "cult" and "secte/sekte/secta/(ect)" meaning "cult". That avyakt7 disagrees with someone else's off-WP-site opinion referenced by LOGRTAC isn't revelvant here. Read the archives - we've had many debates about this.
- "person who posted this link maliciously" Fortunately, aside from vandalism, edit motivation doesn't matter at LOGRTAC. The reference either meets the rules or it doesn't.
- "This is is Wikipedia in English" LOGRTAC has a carefully circumscribed multilingual mission, with reference to all foreign meanings equivalent to English "cult".
- "The Article in Wikipedia clearly states Brahma Kumaris is a NRM" Wikipedia is not self-citeable as a reliable source, and LOGRTAC does not list (nor delist) references according to Wikipedia elsewhere. (If a group is primary listed at LOGRTAC by a bone fide reliable source cult/sect reference, the secondary Wikipedia links are provided as a convenience for researchers.)
- "Wikipedia itself states that "cult" is a word which needs to be avoided" That is Wikilawyering. By common sense, the cult topics articles, including LOGRTAC, do not avoid the word they are about.
- "Reverted again"; "I will restore the reference one more time, but not keep reverting again" On the issue of LOGRTAC removals and reverts, Riveros11/avyakt7 was fact-found by the Arbitration Committee for "Removal of well-sourced information by Riveros11" and "Editwarring". If Riveros11/avyakt7 repeats this pattern at LOGRTAC, editors here can request of members of the BK Arbitration Committee, that Riveros11/avyakt7 related actions here be attached to the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University article probation. Milo 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Smeelgova; I see that you added a "box" in the Brahma Kumaris page. However, it is stated there NRM "New Religious Movement." Thus, it seems that here Brahma Kumaris is considered a "cult" by considering an unreliable source, but over there (BK page) it is a NRM by your own post [20] Could you explain that discrepancy? I have this scholar paper as well [21] where Brahma Kumaris is considered a NRM or even a Religion. This scholar paper by Dr. Kranenborg is a reliable source according to wikipedia standards. I will not revert today.. but I will do it tomorrow. Please present a reliable source backing up your claim and explain the obvious discrepancy: here you defend BK is a cult however, in the BK page it was posted by yourself that it is a NRM.... Best, avyakt7 23:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Smeelgova, and any other editor here does not in any way "defend BK is a cult" by maintaining a rules-consensed BK listing at LOGRTAC. There is no discrepancy — rather it is you who do not understand the difference in article contexts. You cannot directly compare List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC) and Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University articles. Their article styles and missions are quite different. BK is a text article with standard Wikiguides. LOGTRTAC is a list article with standard Wikiguides plus a consensus set of rules-based listings of references.
- Precisely because of many, many historic objections like yours, LOGRTAC's predecessor articles got out of the business of "considering", "deciding", "purporting", or "alleging" what group is a cult or sect (or NRM for that matter). LOGRTAC only lists groups referred to as cults by outsiders reported in reliable sources. Furthermore, all cult/sect references not excluded are accepted — meaning LOGRTAC doesn't decide what kinds of cult/sect reference to accept, only what kinds not to accept (e.g., fancults). That means the cults/sects listed in "SECTAS DESTRUCTIVAS Y GRUPOS DE RIESGO" are accepted by default, unless you can somehow show they are excluded by the consensed rules.
- If you don't like what a reliable source reported, take it up with them, not LOGRTAC editors. References are what encyclopedias do. If you don't like references, then you don't like encyclopedias. If you don't like encyclopedias, then you have no business editing anywhere at Wikipedia. Milo 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I speak fluent Spanish. The site in question: http://galeon.hispavista.com/ is a hosting company and the folder "investigacionsectas/" is a user's page. As such, it is not a reliable source as per WP:RS. Another source may be needed to keep the listing here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Ok. Checking the remaining WP:RS possibilities, "Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Santa Cruz de Tenerife" seems to be a red herring. I can't find whether author Eloy Rodríguez-Valdés is a professor there, and with only one web hit, he also can't be verified as maybe a well-known writer in the field. Looks like this source will stay deleted. Milo 05:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Quotations from sources
It seems as if there are attempts to villify the BK on this page perhaps as an expression of personal POV. I don't profess to know a thing about the BK. But the point of this list is to collect references to groups as cults. Does this then spill over into listing the judgements the references give? We don't have a precedent for that. The recent footnote "(Lists as "Dangerous" by gov't commission France 1996, also Defined as "enemies of the state" in Greece 1993)" appear to step just beyond what the titular purpose of this list into an area that is unfair and unsympathetic in tone. Would it not suffice to list the BK with the sources. cairoi 06:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- "attempts to villify the BK on this page" Taking Arbcom's decision into account, I think both sides might be attempting to bring POV and editwarring to here. Fortunately, LOGRTAC is well-organized to resist it. See my related comments above.
- "listing the judgements the references give? We don't have a precedent for that." No? These do appear to be "government reports", and maybe that should be made more clear to avoid the appearance of POV. Also we have previously debated variations of this as sublist taxonomies. I have argued for a "legal entanglements" classification for sublists (and WP categories). Official government declarations of "dangerous" and "enemies of the state" might fit into such a scheme.
- "unfair" My current problem with this is not that it's being done at all, as that it's not being done to every listable group in an organized way, like wholesale listing of all French "dangerous" and of all Greek "enemies of the state".
- "unsympathetic in tone" Governments haven't liked cults ever since they began killing government employees. Maybe this should be acknowledged in the Government Reports header? Milo 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sorry Milo, I should have been clearer in my writing.
-
- As the List is currently organised it does have room for quotes from various sources. Brining in quotes for one group and not all would unfairly single that group out in the readers mind as especially villanous.
-
- The preamble to the list has been carefully crafted to purport a NPOV. And as I understand it NPOV requires a "fair and sympathetic tone." I think the BK fits this list but should not be singled out as especially deserving of the labels "dangerous" or "enemies of the state." Even if the BK is evil we should be certain that the format of the list avoids intentionally pushing any POV on the reader, especially avoiding one group beingsingled out for special treatment
-
- So, I agree that it has been and should remain a basic principle of this list that the format exclude quotes from the sources. Otherwise it becomes more of an article than a list. cairoi 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I wouldn't say more of an article than a list; it's still substantially list like. Also, most of the text was put there to reduce the impact of a bald list.
- TalkAbout recently listed a BK source [22] which I rm'd because there was no quote to clue me (or others) that the last line of that Isis-cult article was also a BK-sect source. I suggested only a few hours ago that he quote the line in a footnote with a link.
- Banning quotes would make it impossible for most editors to at least partly vet the validity of paper sources. There are several paper sources listed right now that I don't have a clue as to their validity. That makes me want more quotes not less. The use of quotes in the Alcoholics Anonymous footnotes make clear what is quite obscure if one clicks on the link, since the link is a long commentary on reliable source quotes from a journal not on the web.
- So instead of banning all quotes, jump up a metalevel and consider regulating quotes. Seems to me that quoting the actual cult/sect line should always be permitted, as in the cases noted above.
- But instead of maybe over-regulating quotations before it's clearly necessary (ref. Pjacobi's fear of an "extensive book of laws"), jump up another metalevel or so. I notice the quotations in question are off-topic to the cult-sect reference context.
- I think we agree about these seeming POVs, which serve no obvious contextual purpose (such as being comments related to listing in a "legal entanglements" sublist). Why can't you just use your normal editing privilege to remove the POVs? I personally would much rather see the actual cult/sect reference quote in that spot. Milo 06:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Related: CFD 'Cult leaders'
I have nominated the 'Cult leader' category for deletion - your input is requested. Sfacets 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Reliability of media and government sources" is Original Research
- "Reliability of media and government sources" is Original Research. There are no citations, no sources listed, and all the information contained in that section is POV-pushing, and in some cases blatantly false information. Smee 16:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
- Well, I think it should be removed and placed here for discussion and the editor who wants to put that in can then find the citations. Once that is done the editor can place the information in. Input from others would be helpful here. Can we place a POV on that section? PEACETalkAbout 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- That section is going to be extremely difficult for anyone to salvage. I think that your first suggestion is good. Let's take it out and move it here. Tanaats 20:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hello...its all Original Research
In case I'm missing something, the entirety of the introduction, "Reliability of media and government sources", "Groups referred to as "cult" in sociological sources" is uncited, Original reearch, and basically POV-pushing. Conceptually, the whole article constitutes orginal research. Hasnt this been noticed by anuone else. BabyDweezil 04:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Um actually no. As per long established criterion, all info is backed up by sourced citations from reputable sources. Smee 07:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
- All of the sources used meet the standard of "reliable sources". -Will Beback · † · 12:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- However there are two large chunks in the "Groups referred to as "cult" in sociological sources" which are uncited, and therefore are OR... Sfacets 13:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The whole idea of was to establish some criteria and a disclaimer so that this page could remain within the confines of NPOV. Removing the disclaimer and not the criteria will place this article square back in NPOV dispute territory. You can read the archives in which the whole issue of OR was raised and discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the OR tag to the top of the article. If we are arguing about the disclaimers being OR, we should also argue that the criteria established by editors is also OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Indirect reference
If an entry is added with a source that writes something similar to "critics call the organisation a cult" and doesn't mention or refer to the organisation in question as a cult - then the entry cannot be said to be "indicated in the popular press and elsewhere as a 'cult' or a 'sect'". Please comment. Sfacets 05:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is this in relation to anything? -Will Beback · † · 06:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- There are (quite) a few where either it is a third party quotation or a mention that so and so call ____ a cult. Sfacets 07:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Do you have some examples that we can check? -Will Beback · † · 18:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Removal of Some Claimed Cults
I believe that Cults should need to apply some form of coercion or have an explicitly stated theology (i.e. be religious) to belong here.
First, the listing that wikipedia is a cult is bizarre beyond belief and completely unfounded. While this first issue still requires debate, I am going to remove wikipedia from the list of cults. Wikipedia has no theology, no command structure, no coercive fundraising, and no explicitly stated beliefs. It would make as much sense to call Google, yahoo, or AOL a cult.
Similiarly, I fail to see how Aesthetic Realism is a cult. A philosophy that applies to a single field like art and that has no coherent organization behind it cannot be a cult. This leads to a third even more absurd example found on this list.
"The Cult of Mac": Give me a break. How about the Cult of Ben and Jerry's ice cream or the Cult of the Chevy Empala. The person who listed this as a cult is abusing this list.
Last, doesn't a cult need to be under a single organization. Christianity, even if referenced as such, can't be a cult since there are many Christian groups. How then can Objectivism---which has three or four different groups including ARI, TOC, SOLO, and others---be a cult. The "movement" lacks a single coherent organization and, therefore, does not qualify as a cult. If you wish to claim ARI or TOC or SOLO are individually cults then do so if you can source it. However, to list a variegated movement as a cult is absurd. You might as well list socialism as a cult, or Marxism as a cult, or conservatism as a cult. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.51.239 (talk • contribs).
-
- Sorry, but in the somewhat bizarre logic of those who justify this entry, simply being mentioned in a newspaper as being an alleged cult/cult leader is enough to get you listed here. So be careful and keep a low profile and make sure you never get an unflattering mention in a newspaper--you may find you name emblazoned in a Wikipedia (ahem) "encyclopedia" entry! BabyDweezil 18:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- User:68.33.51.239, you make some very good points. Perhaps we should state something like "Groups referred to as "cults" or "sects" in a purely comical or satirical fashion should not be included in this list". Smee 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Smee, If you read Freud's analysis of humor, you will learn that ostensible comic intent all too commonly has a veiled, serious purpose. Read the history of Swift's satires and you will learn that satire is a common and rather serious political tool. For the LOGRTAC editors to take on decisions about what cult references were "purely comical or satirical", could create a quagmire of undecidable claims. But, I wouldn't object to adding that concern to the disclosures if you can find actual examples. Milo 05:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I know the inclusion of Wikipedia on the list is often assumed to be silly, but if folks follow the link they'll see it's a carefully reasoned assertion. It's actually one of the better references we have.
- Aesthetic Realism has been called a cult by various sources (some of which aren't up to our standards). It is not limited to art but is instead a philosophy of life. -Will Beback · † · 22:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- 68.33.51.239, you have an opinion as to what a c-u-l-t is, and you are simply assuming that regular LOGRTAC editors have a different opinion. You are wrong. LOGRTAC editors have no such consensed opinion, and stopped trying to do so sometime over a year ago, precisely because of ongoing irreconcilable disagreements like yours. Editors have now consensed only what types of c-u-l-t references are not listable under the exclusions of rule #5, most notably, fancults of popular culture. In short, all c-u-l-t references not excluded are accepted, including some based on profiles and definitions that you, me, and others here disagree with.
- Will is correct about the quality of the Wikipedia-as-cult reference. The Guardian columnist Charles Arthur actually lists the definitions of both fancult and non-fancult and writes that both apply to Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia definitely has a command structure, as well as explicitly stated (rational) beliefs. If you doubt this, read a few Arbcom cases. See my light-weight cult-analysis here.
- In the case of "The Cult of Mac", it was a test-add that unexpectedly was vetted as valid and even sinister. It's not the well-known Mac fancult that you are assuming. It's a smaller and potentially destructive-cult set of practitioners, with some engaging in probably-illegal death threats. I tried to label it something like "Macintosh threat cult", so editors here wouldn't have to waste time where the actual article wasn't read. See my full analysis of The Cult of Mac here (Page find down to "Macintosh".)
- There is one fancult listed at LOGRTAC that is in fact an abuse of the list: "Tripoli Rocketry Association". IMHO, one particular editor is engaging in WP:POINT, by reverting any attempt to remove it under the rules. It's analogous to his putting a chip on his shoulder. AFAIK, nobody wants to go through process to knock it off, by writing 500 Kb of complaints to the Wikipedia cult-command structure. :)
- Btw, if you want your opinions to be taken seriously here, you'll need to read this entire current talk page, as well as at least last year's archive (links at the top of this page). Milo 05:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hear hear. In fact a good start would be for people to read (1) the very first sentence in the article and (2) the very first heading "Reliability of media and government sources". They state very clearly what this page is all about and those who complain that a listing here is "bizarre", "unfounded" or "wrong" because this or that group "isn't a cult" are clearly missing the point. Their dispute is not with Wikipedia, its editors, or this page - which simply records references - but the source that used the label in the first place. Really Spooky 22:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
1) How is objectivism then not a cult of popular fandom since Ayn was a fiction writer (I am being a little facetious here, but it shows that these things are difficult to define. However, I don't think objectivism is a cult. I mean, cult members agree on things. Objectivists have disputes and schisms every five minutes). 2) I wish you would write an article about the "Cult of Mac" and link to it so that this criticism does not keep coming up. 3)Wikipedia being listed as a cult is absurd. Carefully reasoned or no, it still seems wrong. If it is going to be included, we have to see that reasoning first hand. 4)I believe a cult should have a religious aspect about it. Anyway, serious debate regarding inclusion criteria is needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.51.239 (talk • contribs).
-
- Anonymous editor, I respectfully suggest you -
- 1) Carefully read the introductory paragraphs on the main page to assist your understanding of the purpose of this article before complaining about its content. In particular, it is specifically NOT designed to define whether a group is a cult or not, and this consensus IS the result of a long and serious debate about inclusion criteria; and
- 2) Sign your posts (you can do this using four tildes). Really Spooky 23:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Austrian governmental report
"The report states that other groups present in the country include the Divine Light Mission, Eckanar, Hare Krishna, Holosophic community, Osho movement, Sahaja Yoga, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, Landmark Education, Center for Experimental Society Formation, Fiat Lux, Universal Life, and The Family, but does not specify if these groups appear in the list compiled by the Austrian Federal Ministry."
If this is under the heading "Groups referred to as "cult" in government reports", why are groups not found in the report being mentioned? Sfacets 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please check the numerous citations. Smee 07:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
-
- Yes, but doesn't specify if they are in the Austrian report - if it cannot be shown that they are in the Austrian report, then the heading should be changed. Sfacets 07:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- The citations clearly state that the groups are "classified" by the Austrian government.. Smee 07:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
- Yes, but doesn't specify if they are in the Austrian report - if it cannot be shown that they are in the Austrian report, then the heading should be changed. Sfacets 07:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question about intent
Let me first state that I agree with the concept of a list like this, it makes for easier researching. However, there are some groups on the list that may be listed because a reporter was joking. For example, the Tripoli Rocketry Association and "Cult of Mac" don't seem to belong in the same list with the People's Temple or Branch Davidians. I have personally joked that some Mac users can seem "cultish" in their fanatascim of the product, so I understand the idea.
If the intent of the list is to document any use of the word cult, either serious or jokingly, to describe them then please forgive my criticism. However if the list is meant to cataloge cults that are harmful, then I'd like to propose a update the criteria to include something like:
- 1. An organization of people formed for the pursuit of an intangible concept, usually organized around a leader.
- 2. Identification as a cult or sect in the media after either:
- A. Causing documentable physical, emotional, or monetary damages to a member, critic, or bystander.
- or
- B. Exposure of the group by former members that is also supported by verifiable evidence.
Anynobody 23:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It turns out that after years of debate, editors here can't agree or consense on deciding exactly what a cult is, and list critics demand exactitude for a word that has roughly eight definitions. Therefore we only consense what c-u-l-t-s are not listable, including fancults and joke cults; see rule #5.
- "The Cult of the Mac" needs to be better labeled to indicate that it is not the well-known Mac fancult. It is listed here because it is a potentially destructive cult ("sets of practitioners") that has issued death threats. See my analysis here (Page find down to "Macintosh".) Milo 18:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- On that note, I have been thinking that it would be useful, in addition to this list, to create a List of destructive cults, and/or also a List of doomsday cults. Smee 01:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
-
- I can get behind that, as long as there are enough for each list of course. Of the groups currently listed, how many would be in each category? Anynobody 03:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The purpose behind this list was to ensure that there was as much NPOV as possible - since 'Cult' is already an extremely loaded term, the intent was therefore to simply list groups if they were referred to as such by the media, and not to provide any descriptions which could be seen as biased. Creating an article titled "List of destructive cults" would be biased towards minority groups as the term is a prejudicial and controversial one. It could be called "list of groups referred to as destructive cults" but I'm not sure there are enough candidates to populate such a list - the Destructive_cult article lists a few (it also gives 'doomsday' as synonymous to 'destructive'). It is stretching it as is to list a group as a cult - but to list groups as "destructive cults" would require a lot more evidence and strict inclusion criteria. 'list of doomsday cults' however (if taken as different from destructive cults) would be slightly less loaded, since there is no underlining assumption that the groups in question would act in a destructive manner. Before creating such a list, perhaps the Destructive cult could use some retouches, as it only lists two references to studies made - the concept is really not that clear, unlike this list and the cult article. Sfacets 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I totally agree that the word cult does present POV issues, after all one person's cult can be another's religion. I also agree that actually labeling a group a destructive cult would be very biased to say the least. However I believe the proposed "destructive" cults can still be given their own list, with a less biased name (like "hardship" cults). [Anynobody 05:20, 19 February 2007 con't below]
-
-
- Labeling destructive cults is not considered to be bias, rather it's considered to be historic fact. It's true that there's considerable sympathy for the Branch Davidians, but there is little controversy about them being labeled as such due to them mostly being dead and/or government convicted. Wikipedia has already consensed that destructive cults exist; there is a Category:Destructive Cults. There are only about 10 or so of them, so it makes sense just to list them within the Destructive cults article. Milo 18:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- You are also correct in pointing out that this list has many sources, some of which may be taken out of context. For example the NYT article about the Tripoli Rocketry Association. In their case I think the writer used the term "cult" because building amateur rockets from scratch that may go suborbital is hard, dedicated work requiring a degree of sacrfice. In the end though, one can see and quantify their accomplishments or failures after a rocket launch. It was my understanding that a cult, does not produce tangible results of success or failure until one dies. Anynobody 05:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Tripoli Rocketry Association is a fancult that doesn't meet the listed rules. Fancults are fun-loving (see Bonewit's cult check #16, grimness, and see the last line of the Tripoli NYT article). Fancults are typically nonserious in the sense of having a world view philosophy beyond their own beloved activity.
- Tripoli is a WP:POINT entry intended to get you to write what you just wrote, which wastes editors' time in repeatedly responding to it. We love the editor who did this so much that we can't bear to have him banned. :) Milo 18:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Milo I find your response confusing, if it (TRA) doesn't meet the requirements for this list why not have it removed? Again if the point of this list is to document groups described as a cult from various sources (media, sociology, etc.) that's absolutely fine. It may be worth noting as much in the section for groups labeled by media (I know there are warnings elsewhere on the page, but the media can vary in it's definition of a cult so it's worth reminding a reader. Anynobody 01:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "if it (TRA) doesn't meet the requirements for this list why not have it removed?" Said beloved editor keeps putting it back in. :) Who wants to get in an edit war over something so obvious and silly, when there are so many important debate issues to consense about this global concern? Of course, beloved editor takes exception, and they are debating it in the #Tripoli Rocketry Association section below.
- I take your point, but we've had a lot of POV creep into the POV disclosures recently. Milo 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
I see your point too Milo, I think I'll try to get it sorted out as the logic of this list as is seems incompatible with many principles of Wikipedia. The logic of including a semi-professional rocketry club because they have an international organization and enforce safety rules seems like it leaves the door wide open for anything with an organization, rules, and someone to call it a cult. Anynobody 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hi, Milo. Don't forget about this :) Really Spooky 09:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you smell a sock, turn 'em in. But you better be right, or your own rep takes the hit. Milo 18:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I notice that wasn't a denial. :) In fact, you just provided more evidence with those last two edits above. :) Nothing wrong with socks, just watch how you use them. Really Spooky 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you smell a sock, turn 'em in. But you better be right, or your own rep takes the hit. Milo 18:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Milo. Don't forget about this :) Really Spooky 09:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Ok, I formally deny that I, Milo, as of this date have any sockpuppet accounts at Wikipedia.
- Why would a consensus-seeking editor even want a same-thread sock? While they may have legit uses like firewalling politics from art edits, use of a sock within the same thread suggests an insecure personality who worries that their presented opinions have insufficient influence. Editors who know me, don't always agree with me, but I'd be very surprised if they think that I lack confidence in what I write.
- Under Wikiguidance, I have deleted your 09:09, 21 February 2007 slander that defamed me, by falsely equating me with another user within a Wikicode User link. Milo 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
Looks like I have hit a nerve :) Milo, I have not sought to "slander" or "defame" you. As you yourself note, there is nothing wrong with socks as such. For therecord, I never suggested you are insecure (that is your own conclusion), I merely noted that Wikipolicy says “sock puppets should not be used… to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists”.
- In that vein, I also note that two particular user accounts on this page, both of which share a fixation with the Tripoli Rocketry Association entry, also share several stylistic and spelling peculiarities in their editing. And that the newer account, which appeared only a month ago, demonstrates an unusual familiarity with Wikipedia. And that the newer account’s active editing neatly corresponds to a downturn in the other’s. And that although both edit roughly during the same time of day, they never actually seem to be online at the same time. And that both accounts reacted to my comment, which was not very overt and only addressed to one of them, within hours of each other. Shall I go on? -- Really Spooky 21:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Not until you answer the question I posted on your talk page User_talk:Really_Spooky. I don't know Milo but because he/she and I both think that the TRA is mislabeled under this list doesn't mean we are the same person. If you do not address my concern about your accusations I will be forced to ask for intervention by an admin. Request a checkuser be done on myslef or Milo, but I strongly suggest you stop making vague accusations. Anynobody 22:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
There is no question on my talk page. And, as I am sure you read in my last post above, my observations were not limited to the TRA comments (which I agree would not be areliable indicator on its own if it were the only coincidence). To those I now add that (1) the new account has clearly drawn the inference although I have never named it expressly and (2) both accounts are now goading me into requesting checkuser, although this is clearly not an appropriate situation to do so and you are well aware that any such request would inevitably be turned down. If you start engaging in truly disruptive behaviour that would warrant a checkuser, however, I may take you up on your offer.
- PS -- I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but you just responded to a (rhetorical) question addressed to the Milo account. :) -- Really Spooky 22:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Really Spooky please look more carefully at your talk page, specifically the heading Sock puppet? I followed the link in your last post and it was there. Please understand that I'm not trying to belittle you, but when you accuse Milo of using Anynobody as a sock puppet it does involve me. Moreover your suspicions ARE EXACTLY what chcekuser is for. You don't seem to realize it, and again I'm not trying to belittle you, but you are insulting TWO people when you make an incorrect sock-puppet accusation. Anynobody 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I did look. There is no question there. Unless, of course, you are referring to the heading “Sock puppet?” itself, but I’m afraid notwithstanding the question mark that doesn’t even constitute a comprehensible sentence, much less an identifiable question that I could begin to answer. Perhaps you should try rephrasing what it was you were trying to ask me.
- If you really think a checkuser request would be granted in this situation, why don’t you ask for one yourself? I can read the page and can see clearly that it won’t. For better or for worse, checkuser is only allowed in cases of blatant vandalism, evasion of bans, vote fraud, 3RR violations with socks, etc. But you knew that already, didn’t you? -- Really Spooky 00:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, I agree that checkuser isn't going to help. Also, I need to go do real-world. Milo 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Isaac Bonewits authority inverted for fancults
(reset)
PS - (1) Since when is Isaac Bonewits and his list the authority on what is and isn't a cult? (2) Who said this page is about what is and isn't a cult? (3) I have just now seen Bonewits' list, and if you want to make that the definitive criteria for inclusion here, you're free to propose it. But of course that would be a completely different list. It would also be so ridiculously subjective that if your proposal ever succeeded I'm sure editors could waste oodles of time arguing over who should be included. Really Spooky 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's the other way around. LOGRTAC editors have consensed to not decide what a cult is, but they do have to decide what types of cults are not listable, and that includes deciding whether a particular c-u-l-t reference is a "fancult of popular culture" under LOGRTAC rule #5.
- I did research that showed Archdruid Emeritus Isaac Bonewits is analogous to a former Archbishop of Canterbury as head of an old religion. Druids have surely been routinely maligned as a cult by Christians. In any case, Archdruid Bonewits became a WP:RS recognized authority on the kinds of cults that global citizens worry about, which are also those stereotypically listed at LOGRTAC. I'm not suggesting that Bonewits be relied on exclusively, but that he ranks with other recognized authorities on cults.
- Therefore Bonewits' checklist can be formally considered along with dictionary definitions to collectively assist editors in deciding what a worrisome cult is not, and thus help determine what a fancult is. Bonewits' checklist was of special interest to me, because I seem to recall that dictionaries overlooked the equivalent of Bonewits #16, the fun vs. grimness dimension.
- By Bonewits' Cult Checklist authority #16, worrisome cults tend to be grim. Now combine that authoritative claim with the common knowledge observation that fancults of popular culture tend not to be grim, and inversely tend to be fun. (Note that Wikipedia does allow consensed common knowledge to be entered into this encyclopedia.) It's common knowledge that most fancults are fun, or at least most are not grim, because nearly all of us are among sets of practitioners in one sort of fancult or another. Typically we are popular culture music fans precisely because it's fun.
- In conclusion, an important way, but not the only way to identify a fancult, is that fancults tend to be more fun and less grim than other distinct kinds of cults.
- Milo 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Aesthetic Realism
I removed the entry because 1)The source website is apparently dead and 2)was a biased and therefore unreliable source. Sfacets 03:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Wikiguide calls for storing the dead link of a previously valid reference if no new link is available. Milo 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I have fixed the citation. It was from a valid secondary source. Perhaps hyperlinks are not the best way to retain permanence, in any event... Smee 03:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
What about the reliability of the source? I doubt the 'Jewish times' has a centered opinion on minority groups... Sfacets 03:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Certain Jewish groups and media sources can have one point of view, and others have very different points of view. One should not prejudice a source based on the term "Jewish" in the name of the media format, or any other religion for that matter... Smee 04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
-
- Jews have as much range of opinion as the average Western population does, and probably more due to average higher levels of education. Secular, cultural, and liberal Jews have POVs that are not greatly different from secular, cultural, and liberal Italians. Probably more important is that Jewish Times has to check their facts, as does any other newspaper to avoid libel. Milo 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So could a source by the church of Scientology, for example, be used? the Cult Awareness Network perhaps? Sfacets 04:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It would have to depend in what context. But it would be intriguing to see if Scientology or its front-group the NEW Cult Awareness Network put out any respected neutral secondary source publications... Smee 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
-
- They have founder-inspired policies of cheating and lying in any way possible to defeat their opponents. I would not currently consense any publication of theirs as a reliable source, on anything other than themselves, and even that with a skeptical eye.
- However, things can change. Christian Science was a very controversial cult in the previous century. For example, Science and Health was edited to unreliably attack Mary Baker Eddy's opponents. Indeed, CS was still listed here at LOGRTAC prior to the 1920+ rule. Eventually, CS turned their reputation around after founding the Christian Science Monitor, which is now one of the world's most respected and reliable newspapers. Milo 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tripoli Rocketry Association
- Smeelgova, since you have chosen to revert twice rather than discuss here, I will take the initiative. I was not the person who originally included the amateur rocketeers link, and I don’t know what the original editor’s motives were for including it, but that is beside the point. The link is a reasonable inclusion that meets the criteria. I will explain why.
- If one looks closely at the Tripoli Rocketry Association, s/he will see it is clearly not a “fancult of popular culture” (whatever that means), but a cohesive, dedicated marginal group with a real membership (and a long-standing dispute with the government over the use of explosives). It is not, for example, in the same category as Trekkies, Depeche Mode fans, or even Mac users and Wikipedia (the latter two of which are also included in this list). This was pointed out to Milo earlier, although regrettably he chose to ignore this rather than engage in discussion, only to repeat the same objection later.
- This purpose of this list, as stated right up front at the beginning of the page, is to monitor references to cults and not to define which groups are cults and which ones are not. The selective removal of references to fit one’s preconceived notion of a cult -- which is acknowledged to be a subjective term -- looks to me like an attempt to present a distilled (and distorted) picture of popular usage of the label and thus legitimise the negative, sensationalist definition through the back door. We have already seen the next step where editors have (1) proposed using this list as the definitive criteria for Category:Cult and (2) argued that a media reference to a group as a cult is ‘proof enough’ of cult status because supposedly media organisations would otherwise fear being sued for libel.
- Objective inclusion of media references without preconceived notions at once helps researchers looking for cultish groups and also reminds readers that media references should be taken with a grain of salt. If some are concerned that the media references are too inclusive, their real argument is with the media, not with this list – such persons would be better off researching the sociologist, government, etc. sources instead. -- Really Spooky 00:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the initiative to start a discussion here about this. The 5th criteria clearly states: as not qualifying as a personality cult (heads of state), fancult of popular culture, or group that doesn't have an actual following (fictional or self-nominated groups). Surely in this regard the no reasonable individual would consider the Tripoli Rocketry Association as a "cult", especially when compared to the other groups, and the other qualifying criterion. I would like to hear thoughts by others on this than just the two of us... Smee 00:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
- I couldn't agree more with Smee. I don't know what the original editor's motivation was either, but if we follow his/her line of reasoning then NFL football, NBA basketball, NHL hockey, and all other popular sports that have seriously devoted people following them. Then the list would need to include groups like Star Trek fan clubs and people who play live action RPGs. This goes to my question about the intent of the list above Anynobody 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the initiative to start a discussion here about this. The 5th criteria clearly states: as not qualifying as a personality cult (heads of state), fancult of popular culture, or group that doesn't have an actual following (fictional or self-nominated groups). Surely in this regard the no reasonable individual would consider the Tripoli Rocketry Association as a "cult", especially when compared to the other groups, and the other qualifying criterion. I would like to hear thoughts by others on this than just the two of us... Smee 00:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
-
- I disagree, the group has a following which doesn't breach the '5th criteria' - it is not a fancult, or personality cult, but does have a following, and we're not talking about fans as in Star Trek, we are talking about the rocketry affectionados which form the group. Sfacets 01:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Editors may find TRA's own website informative before drawing conclusions. It is not like NBA fans. For example, it has a worldwide network of "prefectures" with "Prefects" that enforce compliance with TRA "rules and regulations" and certify members to increasing advanced levels. [23] Also note the ongoing litigation where the TRA is suing the government over its attempts to stop its use of explosives, and its appeals to members to step up donations to finance the legal team. [24].
- Smeelgova says "Surely... no reasonable individual would consider the Tripoli Rocketry Association as a "cult"". I would, of course, agree with you in the religious or sociological sense. If I understand you correctly, however, it seems your position is that the list should only include groups that are 'actually cults' (by whatever definition one may subscribe to), as opposed to groups referred to as cults. That does seem to be directly contrary to the purpose of this article. Really Spooky 01:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, what I meant was groups referred to as cults, in a non-fancult/group sense of the term. This is a pretty clear and obvious distinction. People getting together to fire off some recreational rockets does not constitute a cult, and it was not the intention of the (one) article in the media to refer to it in such a manner. In fact, the article uses the term in an almost satirical manner... Smee 01:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
-
It is a sourced entry, and fits the guidelines... just because it has only one source isn't grounds for it's removal. Sfacets 01:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Really Spooky I think people tend to assume it means "actual cults". It's fine if it doesn't but why are sports like football (both American and world definitions), baseball, and hockey not in the list. Or any Star Trek clubs, when you include groups like the People's Temple and the Tripoli Rocket Association but exclude other more commonly known "cultish" devotions it looks very strange. Anynobody 01:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The reason why football, baseball, hockey and Star Trek are not in the list is because no-one has identified any sociological, psychological, media or government sources that have referred to them as cults. Having said that, there are some editors on this page that would like people to assume it is a list of "actual" cults, but that's not what it is. It's a list of groups that have been referred to as cults. But you knew that already, didn't you? Really Spooky 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Anynobody, the whole reason there are inclusion criteria is to not have editors remove entries because, according to them the group isn't a "real cult". Also what differs this group is that it doesn't have a fanbase, unlike the cast of Star Trek or the football team. Sfacets 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Really Spooky If I understand you correctly I can add Sony Playstaion, NASCAR, and celebrity news under the section for cults identified by the media? Sony Playstation's cult following cited in Financial Times UK, NASCAR from cult to craze cited in the st. petersburg times, and the irresistible cult of celebrity mentioned on CTV Anynobody 02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Sfacets how do you know that there is not a fan base for the TRA? Anynobody 02:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, that the TRA has or doesn't have a fan base is irrelevant - we are talking about the group in question, not their fanbase. Sfacets 03:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd also like to put up for consideration The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints from the Washington Post and the Indianapolis Star as well as the Jerusalem Post. Sfacets I didn't bring up the fanbase as an argument, you did:Anynobody, the whole reason there are inclusion criteria is to not have editors remove entries because, according to them the group isn't a "real cult". Also what differs this group is that it doesn't have a fanbase, unlike the cast of Star Trek or the football team. Sfacets 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC) If it's irrelevant why would you cite the fanbase of the Star Trek cast as a difference between Star Trek and the TRA? Anynobody 03:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The TRA was refered to as a cult because of the intimate and closed nature of the group, and not because it has (or doesn't have) a fanbase. If the links you provided above concern the group in question, refer to it as a 'cult' then fel free to ad, it, although I believe it fails point 4. Sfacets 03:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Respectfully Sfacets, are you saying that a group of men who go to a u.s. football game, paint letters on their bare chests, and stand together to spell out the name of their favorite team don't share an intimate relationship of a closed nature? Anynobody 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- If Sony Playstation users, NASCAR fans, people who follow celebrity news, or men who paint letters on their chest at football games had worldwide movements with memberships, networks of local organisations with rules and regulations enforced by 'prefects', certified their members to varying levels within a heirarchy and pooled their funds to litigate with an ATF investigating their activities then they would be similar to the Tripoli Rocketry Association and would meet criteria nos. 2 & 5, but they currently do not. Also if the Mormons had only appeared after 1920 they would meet criterion no. 4, but as things are they do not. But you knew that already, didn't you? -- Really Spooky 11:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It is the consensed task of editors here to decide what is a fancult of popular culture under LOGRTAC rule #5.
• To help do so, I suggest consulting the definitions at the top of the Cult article: Dictionary definitions of "cult".
• Another helpful thing would be to use Google-define { define:fancult } { define:"fan cult" } and { define:"fan-cult" } along with plain Google of { "fancult" OR "fan cult" OR "fan-cult" }.
• It would also be useful to run Tripoli Rocketry Association through the WP:RS Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame. A relatively high score would suggest that TRA is not a fancult.
• It's noncontroversial for editors here to use tools like Bonewits' cult checklist to help decide what group or set of practitioners is or isn't a fancult. I've vetted Bonewits as a WP:RS recognized authority here (the actual "recognized authority" research links are on the Talk:Cult page). Milo 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed GCI from list
I think this serves as a good example of the weaknesses of this list. The articles listed are newspaper articles. Since the guideline says "one source" and the guidelines are so loose, what we basically have here is the ability for any group or individual who has a newspaper or other means of publishing to call anything a cult. That's not the type of forum that an encylopedia is meant to provide. The articles on these organizations individually should, and as far as I can tell, include the details as to what they are criticised for. Having a list like this is essentially pointless in that it doesn't provide any additional useful information. It also allows anyone to paint any organization they want to in a bad light. I could find a print source calling every single denomination and religious organization in the US a cult. The only reason this list is relatively small is that the people who edit it all have a motivation for adding the particular addition they choose to. GCI is a particular example - the editor who added it has a particular vendetta against that organization, and thus chose old articles (two from the same paper) that basically amount to one reporter choosing to use that word. That's the very opposite of what wikipedia is about. This is a place for information, not taking out one's vendettas. This article is especially weak in that it essentially encourages that. In lieu of deletion, the source guidelines should be majorly strengthened - by no means is one source sufficient to label any organization with such a term, especially in a day when it is thrown around so loosely in our society.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Gatorgalen (talk • contribs) 03:35, 23 February 2006.
- The print sources have to be reliable - and the sources used to justify the inclusion of GCI are reliable. Hw then do you justify removing it from the list? Sfacets 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The definition of reliable here is very shaky. These are outdated newspaper articles. How does a reporter with an agenda become a "reliable source" to label an organization a cult? Gatorgalen 18:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Gatorgalen, I can sympathise with your desire to exclude GCI from the list, since I see from your talk page that you are a GCI missionary and you no doubt find media reports alleging that GCI is a cult to be offensive. And I will take your word for it that the editor who included GCI is opposed to the group. Nevertheless, your repeated removal of GCI from the list is essentially POV and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of this page. Please consider why with a cool head before reverting again:
- Read the introduction on the main page, and in particular the heading “Reliability of media and government sources”. The purpose of this page is not to determine that any group is a cult, but rather to track references to groups as cults in a variety of sources for research purposes. The media references may very well be inaccurate or POV but their inclusion here is in not an endorsement of the views presented, it is merely a record that a reference has been published. For example, you may have noticed that Wikipedia itself is in the list.
- In this context, a practice of removing groups from the list that meet the criteria because they “aren’t cults” would in fact be unencyclopaedic. First, it would defeat the entire purpose of having objective criteria. Second, it would suggest by reverse implication that the remaining groups are 'real' cults.
- I have read your objections carefully and understand that your real disagreement is with this page itself and/or its inclusion criteria. With this in mind the appropriate action would be to recommend the page for deletion or suggest improvements to the inclusion criteria, not to remove a group that meets them just because you feel its inclusion carries negative implications. That is POV.
- I should warn you, however, that this article has already survived four nominations for deletion and the current inclusion criteria reflect a consensus borne by extensive debate. So you may find yourself with an uphill battle. Might I suggest that your familiarity with GCI in this case would be best applied to ensuring the Wikipedia article on the group itself is objective, informative and accurate. -- Really Spooky 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I left an informative message about WP:3RR on his talkpage. Just a friendly warning, I won't be the one to report for 3RR if it occurs, since he's such a new user... Smee 22:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
Don't worry, there won't be any 3RR violation. In response to Really Spooky - I'm not offended by media reports alleging that GCI is a cult because there are none. What does is exist is some really old articles which another editor, with an extreme agenda, claims call GCI a cult. I'd love to actually see the articles, but I doubt whether said editor himself has. What I was trying to point out was that his addition was the example of POV editing here. That being said, I would like to ask (anyone) what the purpose of this page is, and how you can justify its inclusion in an encylopedia. It does not present useful information, or information that can not be found on the individual pages. All it does, in Spooky's words, is track references to groups as cults. While that might be an amusing topic for an outside website, I fail to see how it is appopriate for an encyclopedia. As for deletion - I think that is an option, and it was certainly not by consensus that it has survived this long. My main question, and challenge to those who have edited it, is this: It is pretty obvious that the editors have selectively chosen the groups that they have added. It appears the main criteria is that they consider that group a "real cult" or otherwise find its inclusion amusing (wikipedia). This is why I say it reeks of POV. If you think I am wrong, then here is my challenge to the other editors - actually make this list comprehensive. That means adding every mainstream group out there in christendom, because every group (this includes denominations, which are for the most part excluded by the age limit) in the US has been called a cult. This is true of every non-christendom group that has received publicity as well. The list is short for one reason - the editors have selectively chosen who they want to be on it. A quick internet search will find that Campus Crusade, Intervarsity, Calvary Chapel, CCCU, Vineyard, Assembly of God, Samaritan's Purse, etc. etc. have all been called cults at one point by some media person. That is what makes the idea of listing them all absurd, and I again challenge you to make it comprehensive or consider deletion - anything but the current POV "I'll add it bc I don't like it" state of this article. Respectfully, Gatorgalen 00:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Gatorgalen, do I understand correctly that you maintain the references cited are not actually about GCI? If that is the case, the appropriate step to take would be to ask the editor to provide evidence establishing a connection between the cited newspaper articles and GCI, and if s/he fails to do so in a reasonable time the references could then be removed. You did not make this clear in any of your prior posts, however, where your stated objection was that the references were one reporter’s “opinion” and that the editor who included them was “biased”. That makes it look like you were just trying to prevent inclusion of a reference to your own Church or group.
- As for the rest of your comments, you make some good points. However, I note once again they revolve around opposition to this page in general and the inclusion criteria in particular. The appropriate way to deal with this would be to either recommend it for deletion and present your arguments there, or to make constructive proposals on revising the inclusion criteria. For example, whilst I am not sure about your assertion that “every group has been called a cult”, I do happen to agree that the inclusion criteria appears to have been artificially crafted to target new religious movements whilst excluding older mainstream faiths, and thus casts an unjustified pall of suspicion on the former. -- Really Spooky 16:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- • The Great Commission International newspaper cites probably came from here (Appendix A).
- • "artificially crafted to target new religious movements" It was the other way around — listing major religions turned out to be an artifice. For example, I arrived here because I couldn't fathom the logic of why Baptists, Quakers, (and Sunnis, Shias), were listed as cults (apparently by the French Report). Prior to about June of 2006 major religions were listable, but it led to an unresolvable quagmire of ancient cult wrongs (a Papal empire massacre) and modern theological disputes (Protestant fundamentalists vs. RCC-the-supposed-cult) — all of which seemed unrelated to modern controversial referred-as-cults like Peoples Temple and ISKON. The summarized outcome of that long and tedious debate was that global citizens refuse to accept that any major religion is currently a cult — even if it formerly was such prior to the 1920's-30's when J. Gordon Melton says that "cult" took on its modern meanings. Milo 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- • "media reports alleging that GCI is a cult because there are none" I looked at the footnotes which contain the article titles:
- 13. "Iowan tells cult experience", Des Moines (Iowa) Register, 1985-01-12.
- 14. "Cult Corner: Student survivor of one sect's manipulation and coercion tells her story in support group to help others escape cult clutches", The Sun, 1992-2-21.
- 15. "ISU Bible Study group: 'Wonderful' or 'a cult'?", Des Moines (Iowa) Register, 1980-03-13.
- For the 'as a "cult" ' requirement, #13 is probable, #15 doesn't qualify by title alone, but #14 is certain. CGI isn't specifically identified in any of these titles, but the Wikipedia rules just say it has to be verifiable, not actually verified (which is one reason Wikipedia is not a reliable source). The 1992 article might be electronically retrievable if money was paid. Also, one of the cult news article archive sites may have them. [Update: Rick Ross only has articles about business activities of the founder. 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)]
- • "The definition of reliable here is very shaky" Oh? It's the same definition that the Wikipedia WP:RS guide requires.
- • "How does a reporter with an agenda become a "reliable source" to label an organization a cult?" Believe it or not, the reporter's job is to report what other people say, so it wouldn't be the reporter's agenda to so label. Global citizens, however, are quite biased toward groups they regard as cults, and so their bias does get reported in reliable sources.
- • "Since the guideline says "one source" " Others including me have proposed changes to the single-source rule #0, but we've never been able to reach any other consensus.
- • "we basically have here is the ability for any group or individual who has a newspaper or other means of publishing to call anything a cult" In practice most groups or individuals do not have that ability, since only WP:RS sources can be used for LOGRTAC listings.
- • "I would like to ask (anyone) what the purpose of this page is, and how you can justify its inclusion in an encylopedia."
- The short answer is research. LOGRTAC is a compilation close to one-stop, in that it links government and media references to c-u-l-t-s in all definitions not excluded (like fancults and joke cults), as well as the individual Wikipedia articles which are at least somewhat balanced compared to the media articles. Note that editors here don't decide what a "real cult" is. They don't decide what types of c-u-l-t-s to include, only what types to exclude, which avoids endless quibbling. That means if a WP:RS reliable source, such as a fact-checking newspaper/magazine (needs a big enough staff), a well-known fact-checking writer/reporter (books), or recognized subject authority (an exception to avoiding primary-source personal websites), names or opines a group as a cult (not "cult-like" as Opus Dei is referred), or reports that someone else so named or opined (in a street interview or on a personal website), and did so within the last 50 years, then it's probably listable at LOGRTAC.
- The reason why this list is encyclopedic is that people (I call them 'global citizens') and their governments all over the world are vitally interested in this subject. The primary reason for the vitality of that interest, is that a significant number of groups (10-some) that global citizens referred to as cults began to kill their own members -- as well as government employees beginning in 1978 with California-USA Congressman Leo Ryan in Jonestown, Guyana. Global governments have responded to the global citizens' mandate with the concept of "cultwatching". The purpose of cultwatching is to observe and halt small-but-illegal group activities before they grow into major crimes. You can read more about this global practice by governments and the reasons for it by following the reference links in LOGRTAC's "French Report" section.
- • "It is pretty obvious that the editors have selectively chosen the groups that they have added." That may be true (most listings seem to have been added by drive-by editors, not the regulars), but the consensed listing rules mean that it doesn't matter. The listing gets deleted if it doesn't meet the rules. From your POV perhaps, these rules are equally unfair to all listed groups.
- • "or information that can not be found on the individual pages." Actually there is a history in that regard. LOGRTAC maintains listings that sometimes get deleted from the individual group's article, allegedly because they're "too old".
- • "These are outdated newspaper articles." LOGRTAC is an article that doesn't forget the long view of a group's history. If I had something to hide, I too would not like this kind of reporting, or like reporting at all.
- • "adding every mainstream group out there in christendom" Mainstream Christianity and most of its denominations were founded before 1920, and so are not listable. There are some grey areas here. A new church that is disavowed by its old denomination can be listed, and I think that happened to certain International Churches of Christ which are listed.
- • "Campus Crusade, Intervarsity, Calvary Chapel, CCCU, Vineyard, Assembly of God, Samaritan's Purse, etc. etc. have all been called cults at one point by some media person." Reliable source media? The regular editors here will help you vet these potential adds to the list.
- • "That is what makes the idea of listing them all absurd" I respectfully suggest that is a myth. Globally, there may be under 300 groups controversial enough to be referred to as cults (see the government reports sections). The Cult article says there were (1995) 3,000-5,000 USA cults. Somewhere between 2-10% of them ever annoy their neighbors enough, to be called a cult in an interview with a reporter. That means at least 90% of cults are good or good enough, and will never be listed. LOGRTAC may well be able to list the rest, though for reasons of page size, the article may eventually need to be divided into smaller pages.
- • "find its inclusion amusing (wikipedia)" Did you read it? Charles Arthur of The Guardian didn't say that he was amused. Milo 06:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC) touchup edits 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Milo,
- Can you label the above points so that it is easier to comment and worthy of comment I might say. Some time back if you check the archive you will see someone else made similar points and even had a point system to separate the groups mentioned. As to the ones mentioned in the first post I think I ran into one group mentioned while researching another which may answer your question concerning one group. I will get back to you on that point. Can you provide the LOGRTAC's links.PEACETalkAbout 22:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "Can you label the above points" If I understand what you are asking, I recommend doing what I'm doing and quote the phrase you are responding to, followed by your response. If I numbered my bullet points and you replied by number, other readers would have to jump back and forth or do a split screen to follow the debate. And they still might not be sure, to which part of a long numbered section you were referring.
- "someone else made similar points and even had a point system to separate the groups mentioned" I don't remember this and so wouldn't know for what to search.
- "which may answer your question concerning one group" I didn't write the first post in this thread (#Removed GCI from list); that was written by Gatorgalen.
- "Can you provide the LOGRTAC's links" Do you mean article-listed links for the groups you referred to without naming? Not sure which ones those are. Milo 01:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
-
A somewhat delayed response to Milo's comments. I'll number mine to make it simpler for a person to respond, but you can feel free to copy, I have no preference.
1. I think it's telling the way you refer to the earlier debate as religions vs. 'referred-as-cults like Peoples Temple and ISKON". That's the issue I was trying to bring up. Those two groups are referred to as cults, widely. There's a big difference between GCM and them. Whereas there are a handful of reporters who have referred to GCM as a cult or used that word in a catchy title (and never any governments or anything like that), there are multitudes that constantly refer to groups like Peoples Temple and ISKON and ICC and others as cults. It just doesn't make sense to have GCM on the same list.
2. It's pretty clear just by looking at the partners of GCM (a veritable who's who of modern evangelicalism) and the memberships and independent accountability structures that they don't fit any definition of cult, and it goes against common sense to have them on the same list as what you call "referred-as-cults". Just like it wouldn't make sense to have Campus Crusade (an extremely close partner with GCM) or any of the number of groups I mentioned earlier. These groups make up a very large part of modern evangelicalism and the modern church, and all have been called cults. Common sense, and the lack of an agenda by any editor, is the reason they haven't been added
3. As a full-time minister and long-time cult watcher, I respectfully submit that my earlier statement is quite true. I can't find the source of your numbers, but literally every evangelical group in our country (or one of its member bible studies/churches) has been referred to as a cult, especially everyone involved in campus ministries. As you stated earlier, Baptists are referred to by some as a cult, and they're the largest denomination in our country.
3a. Again, this goes to the utility of this list. Contrary to the little editorial which goes under the first heading (it amuses me, someone should clean it up), there is a danger of "poisoning the well" here.
4. My challenge again is for someone to do some serious research and see that every evangelical group of any size out there can be added. I don't think they should be, just based on common sense, but if you want things to be encylopedic they should be. Either that or modify the rules for inclusion. I think the editors here need to take a good look in the mirror and recognize what has pushed addition thus far. Take a look at the editor who first added GCA, as an example (he and I have already discussed this). Over 90% of his edits have been to the GCA article. (That's also true of me, btw).
5. Minor note: given the current rules for inclusion, I think a much more appropriate name would be "List of every group ever referred to as a cult" or "List of groups once (at least) referred to as cults". This would clarify things a lot. I am serious. From a grammatical standpoint, the current title is ambigious in that it can refer to present tense as well as past. There is the implication that groups either are widely or consistently referred to as cults at the present time. With a group like GCM, that's as far as you can get from the truth. I don't know of an article in 15 years that even refers to GCM negatively, while there are tons of articles, and more importantly respected organizations, other ministries, and Christian leaders who speak of it in the highest terms.
5a. As to details, by mainstream I meant organizations like I listed, which, along with GCM, are considered "mainstream" by most of Christianity in doctrine and such matters.
6. You said "the reporter's job is to report what other people say". I couldn't agree more! Unfortunately, that's an increasingly rare occurence. There's plenty of research out there regarding the state of American media. Gotta have a flashy headline these days, and editorials are no long restricted to the editorial page. Again, I'd love to see said articles, but as you pointed out they are probably taken from the anti-GCM site, and neither I (nor I suspect any other editor) has seen them.
7. As to "the long view", refer to my comment regarding a change of title to more accurately reflect this.
8. As to cult-watching having to do with preventing illegal activities, that certainly is a worthwhile goal. Unfortunately that's not the case with GCM - heck, we beat the IRS in court because we obeyed the law so well! I don't think GCM's ever been accused of anything illegal. The same logic applies to wikipedia.
9. I meant it was amusing to the editor to add it, not the writer. Even so, I don't think Arthur meant for it to be in the same category as the others on this list (as he says in the article). That article is great in that it shows how the term cult can be used to describe so many things. All you have to do is find the right definition. I think Spooky was right on when he referred to the current criteria as "artificially crafted to target new religious movements". From a normative standpoint, why should age or size exclude a group from being called a cult? It certainly doesn't prevent newspapers or governments from labeling them as such. I think going back to that way would make this much less of a "list of groups an editor doesn't like". So that, along with rethinking the name, is my first suggestion. Gatorgalen 06:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- • "It just doesn't make sense to have GCM on the same list." Personally, I agree, and I have proposed that cult references be classified by type of government interaction.
- • "I don't think GCM's ever been accused of anything illegal." If your org wasn't sued the way ISKON was, and certainly is not a destructive cult like Peoples Temple, and isn't on a known government cultwatch list, then your org would classified as something like "no known interactions with governments". However, there currently is no consensus for this proposal.
- • "that they don't fit any definition of cult," Some other people obviously don't agree with you. Any definition of cult, even an unknown private one is accepted by default. I seem to recall that the cult charge against GCM was excessive control of members. But then we'd get into how much is too much, and there's no way to draw that line, so the referenced opinion as a cult is accepted by default.
- • "I can't find the source of your numbers" The 3,000-5,000? Look at the reference in the Cult article. The range of percentages are based on the numbers of groups currently listed in LOGRTAC, compared to the 3,000-5,000 estimated total.
- • "literally every evangelical group in our country (or one of its member bible studies/churches) has been referred to as a cult," Baptists were founded before 1920, so they don't get listed. Any org founded 1920 or later for which you can supply a WP:RS reference will be listed. You may submit that it is true, and it may well be so, but it sounds like these are all blog comments, newsletter remarks, and such that never made it into WP:RS sources. Jewish teens constantly refer to one of their orgs as a cult, but that doesn't get mainstream reported. The point is that there is a certain threshold of discontent that has to be breached before such opinions get into the papers. I haven't been able to read the GCM articles, or I could probably tell you how GCM managed to annoy their neighbors, which is how these cult complaints always start.
- • "there is a danger of "poisoning the well" here." Any use of the word "poisoning" is inflammatory, and I think deliberately so to stir up trouble. I don't consense it being there. I agree that being on the list looks bad, but that those references were made, are historic facts.
- • "the utility of this list" I've already explained that - it's to prevent the rise of yet more destructive cults, but also to prevent a host of lesser wrongs of exploitation that are too similar to slavery. If you haven't or don't intend to read the "French Report" about these lesser wrongs, then these are not things you could relate to list utility.
- • "My challenge again is for someone to do some serious research and see that every evangelical group of any size out there can be added" You made the claim, so that would be you. I doubt that you can supply both WP:RS sources, and groups founded 1920+.
- • "take a good look in the mirror and recognize what has pushed addition thus far" In my case, that would be the higher principles stated in the "French Report". If you read the archives, you will see that I've repeatedly referred to the value of working from principles. If some, even most editors are motivated by bad "get'em" feelings to make good (i.e., compliant) listings, how would I know, and if I did know, what difference would it make? You might read Code of Hammurabi to help you understand why laws/rules are considered better than the arbitrary dictates of kings or editors.
- • "a "list of groups an editor doesn't like"." I think you're missing the point that editors are citizens, and global citizens just don't like cults. Some of this is a simple dislike of competition with their family religion or political party. In other cases, it's a well-justified fear of groups that arm themselves, bully their neighbors, or engage in a variety of scofflaw activities like zoning and noise violations. LOGRTAC can't make unpopular groups popular. The best that can be done is apply the same listing standards to every group.
- • "List of every group ever referred to as a cult" Doesn't work because there is a 50-year time limit, as well as the 1920+ rule.
- • "List of groups once (at least) referred to as cults". There is some merit to this proposal, but probably a lot of resistance to lengthening the title yet more. You might have to settle for a disclosure of your point, which I have called referred-to-as-cults' "graduation" into the mainstream. For example, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and ISKON (in process).
- • "that's an increasingly rare occurrence." I respectfully disagree. However, it's true that opinion gets mixed with fact. It requires some analysis and experience to read a mixed article and separate the two, but it can be done. Headlines are not written by the reporter and they often disagree with the chosen headline.
- • "I'd love to see said articles" So would I. If GCM is as mild as you say, I think it would help you for these to be available on line. Accordingly, I've suggested that they be sent to Rick Ross for web archiving by an editor who says he has them. (But who knows when or if this will happen.)
- • "the term cult can be used to describe so many things" I've read that there are roughly eight definitions. Religious Tolerance org says part of the problem is that each citizen grows up learning only one definition.
- • "From a normative standpoint, why should age or size exclude a group from being called a cult?" Simple, that's what global citizens think a cult is: relatively small and/or relatively new locally, plus a range of other characteristics including exploitation and excessive control of members. Like obscenity, citizens may not be able to precisely define it, but they think they know a cult when it moves into town.
- • "I don't think Arthur meant for it to be in the same category as the others on this list (as he says in the article)." I don't remember him saying that in the article; perhaps you could quote him? What I recall was that Arthur quoted both a cult and fancult definition, and said Wikipedia was both. Milo 11:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Milo, I like the way you think about these things. You're very idealistic. 1. I wish there was indeed a common "threshold" that had to be reached, but sadly "cult" is thrown around more and more carelessly in our society. 2. As for lawsuits, I think the only govt. agency that has sued GCM is the IRS, and they lost horribly. In fact, in the countersuit they had to pay all of GCM's costs. It's not really a GCM issue though, they were trying to close a loophole that exists for missionary organizations, trying to set precedent with GCM to tackle Campus Crusade. It's an amazing story. 3. Thanks for clarifying that your percentage was original research - it is very circular to use LOGRTAC to formulate a percentage to use to try to prove that LOGRTAC is fairly extensive. Reexamine your logic. 4. My challenge stands - I simply don't have the time or resources, but it seems like several editors have a vested interest in this particular article. It is them that I challenge to look into it. Most of those can be found with a simple Google search, but another issue we encounter here is that, as has already been discussed, none of the articles for GCM can be found online. That is true of some other groups as well, but they are there. It would take someone (probably a college student) with the ability to access newspaper articles in a database. I picked one at random and found a newspaper article online in the first page of google results. 5. With Charles Arthur, I was referring to this quote - "And I'm certainly not comparing Jimmy Wales, who set up Wikipedia with the most honorable intentions, to Hubbard's daft science-fiction grow-your-own "religion". 6. For the title, I submit this "List of groups that have been referred to as cults". I know it's annoying to lengthen it, but something needs to be done to make it less ambiguous. Some of these aren't being referred to as cults presently and some are, some have isolated incidents. The title should be clear. 7. I plan to edit the first paragraph because it has a lot of orginal research. Thoughts? 8. I think you're hiding behind this "global citizens" term. What we're talking about are really individual people. Many of the problems aren't global, and organizations, and while I understand your mindset, i think it serves to confuse the issue sometimes. Also, when you state an opinoin, just let it be yours; you have good ones. Gatorgalen 04:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- ..as you pointed out they are probably taken from the anti-GCM site, and neither I (nor I suspect any other editor) has seen them.
- Ha! At Milo's suggestion, I have quoted from one of the articles in the citation. I plan to do so with others as time allows. Trust me, the articles are real and I have them. Gatorgalen, I find it partially annoying and partly amusing that someone with such an obvious lack of knowledge about GCI's past is attempting to argue about that history, not based upon any apparent research or knowledge of it (within NOR bounds), but rather based upon their disbelief due to not having seen the articles in question. You seem so adamant to defend the organization you work for, but based on what? The good feelings you have working for them now? Does it surprise or anger you to find out there are so many negative newspaper articles on your movement? Do you think the sources were made up? The movement has been classified as a cult by several organizations. I'm sorry that you don't like dealing with this aspect of your movement's history, but it's true. It belongs on this page for that reason.
-
- You also made another remark which was aimed at me: Over 90% of his edits have been to the GCA article. (That's also true of me, btw).
- In December when I did the majority of those edits, I was new to Wikipedia, was writing about a topic I knew a lot about, and in an article that was almost skeletal with the exception of a few basic facts lifted from the GCI website. There is nothing sinister about editing articles in areas with which one is interested in. Especially when your goal, as mine was, is to take a minimal article and add and expand it into a more comprehensive one that covers the positive and negative aspects of a controversial movement. Your constant attacks and presumptions about my motives are very unprofessional.
-
- As for the rest of the debate, regarding the role of this page and so forth, I think I'll stay out of it. Cheers. Xanthius 04:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, I am glad that my suspicion was incorrect. May I ask how you obtained these articles? I have never questioned the reality of these articles, but rather how many people (including gcmwarning and decom people, and editors have actually seen them). The problem with only one person, or even one side, having access to these articles is that it allows for selective quoting.
- You assume quite a lot about me as well. I do not lack knowledge about GCI's past. It neither surprises nor angers me. Your annoyance and amusement are reciprocated I assure you. I'm glad we amuse each other :) Seriously, my annoyance/amusement is based on seeing someone stuck in the past and with an apparent lack of knowledge regarding the current state of GCM continue in a personal crusade against that organization. BTW, I do think "so many articles" is rather misleading - honestly, given the size of the organization, ten or even twenty "negative" articles is pretty good. As I stated previously, all similar groups have them (why don't you crusade against Crusade as well, they have many more negatives out there). Not to mention that I haven't seen one in the past 15 years. You've abided by the rules for the most part, and I have no problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with you focusing on the GCA article. I just think there needs to be intellectual honesty here if there's any hope of this article becoming better. I've been upfront with who I am, I just want you to do the same - it's pretty obvious what your motivation is, there is no presumption needed, especially after this most recent post. BTW, I note that you have yet to respond whether you are involved with the gcmwarning or decom sites. Believe it or not, I'm not mad at you or trying to start a fight, but I am going to challenge you all the way when I think it's needed. Gatorgalen 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] WP:Point
I added a sourced entry:
Cult Awareness Network(Old CAN) Defining 'cult' is no easy task, experts sayThe Dallas Morning News March 28, 1993, viewed 5 March 2007
which User:Smeelgova removed without discussion, leaving a rather rude edit summary "Remove violations of WP:POINT" without bothering to discuss it here on the discussion page dispite an invitation to do so. I would call the repeated removal of a sourced entry a WP:POINT violation. Sfacets 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is most certainly a violation of WP:POINT. The reference obviously does not refer to the group in question in that manner whatsoever. Smee 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
-
- let's see: ""the anti-cult cult.", "a cult of low-level street thugs, kidnappers and mental rapists." Sfacets 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- The first is simply not a reference, the second comes from a highly biased source, to say the least... Smee 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
- let's see: ""the anti-cult cult.", "a cult of low-level street thugs, kidnappers and mental rapists." Sfacets 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
...but does it fit in with the criteria for inclusion? Sfacets 04:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, it does not. It is not the media source referring to the group, but rather a quite biased third-party. Smee 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
-
- Where does it get the media get it's information from? Third-parties. That's why they call it reporting. Should every article where the group is described as a cult by third parties be removed then? Sfacets 04:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- And that is exactly why this is a violation of WP:POINT. You are simply using this to test an issue, rather than arguing about the points of this individual entry. In any event no, the subsection heading is: Groups referred to as "cult" in the media, and should be kept as such for inclusion. Your entry fails these criterion. Smee 04:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
- Where does it get the media get it's information from? Third-parties. That's why they call it reporting. Should every article where the group is described as a cult by third parties be removed then? Sfacets 04:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not, what I'm trying to do is defend my inclusion, which you had removed time and time again. I'm using the other entries as examples. (Precedents, if you wish) Sfacets 04:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- In any event, the group is only referred to in this manner by a highly biased source. Therefore, this inclusion is spurious at best, and should be removed forthright. Smee 04:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
-
- I looked at the source and Sfacets is correct; the (old) Cult Awareness Network listing does seem to meet all the article rules as well as WP:RS. It was reported in reliable Dallas Morning News which is in the media, Kelley and Taylor each called CAN a cult, CAN was a qualifying organization, the cult references occurred within the last 50 years, CAN was founded after 1920, and CAN was not a fancult or fictional.
- At the constructional insistence of the four AfD communities, LOGRTAC editors got out of the business of making judgements of opinion bias as to who is or isn't a cult. With the one, or maybe two, scientific proofs of being a cult that LOGRTAC lists, all the rest are opinions, usually of persons quoted in the media, but it can also be a columnist (e.g., Charles Arthur), or an official editorial opinion, all of which can be and frequently are, claimed to be biased, wrong, or in some other way unacceptable.
- "in that manner" LOGRTAC accepts by default for listing, all definitions and uses of c-u-l-t, even if they are ill-informed or maliciously contrived. What you may be sensing is that Kelley and Taylor are making their POINT by reverse-calling CAN a cult with inadequate definitional justification, but that's not Sfacets' making of a WP:POINT. In any case, a claim of WP:POINT is automatically disproved if the add meets the rules. Unless I've made a mistake in my analysis, I respectfully suggest that it does. Milo 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree with Milo and Sfacets that the CAN reference complies with the formal page criteria. I also agree with Smee, however, that the reference is contrary to the purpose of this page. For example, even if one sets the question of bias aside, under the current criteria even a group referred to as a cult by a child, a mentally insane person or a stand-up comic would be included, so long as some reliable source reported the fact. I think media sources themselves also use the label far too liberally, but people who read and edit this page seem to want them in, and at least it sets SOME kind of standard to keep out blatantly abusive usages of the term, and gives a good barometer of public perceptions about ‘cults’. But the loophole should be removed.
- I propose to do this by amending the first line in the criteria box to read: “Inclusion is based on a single reference by a reliable source:” with the words “reliable source” wiki-linked to WP:RS. Any takers? -- Really Spooky 00:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- This is very similar the defeated "no opinions" proposal, except that it would allow the (usually) unattributed opinions by the editor or reporter, such as currently is found in the Opus Dei source.
- Someone should sample the list to see how much of it would disappear. I'm not sure, but wouldn't surprise me if 90%+ of the list would go away. Of those listings that remained, the cult-referenced groups would be outraged that LOGRTAC listed superficially nameless opponents. Recall the USA constitutional principle which requires that the accused have a right to confront their accusers. Milo 08:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I am open to an alternative proposal that would close the loophole, although I the one I have put forward would clearly make the page more compliant with the letter and spirit of Wikipolicy.
- Having said that, I am not proposing removing opinions as such, that would be something entirely different: as you pointed out above, every reference to a group as a cult is ultimately someone's opinion, since there are no objective criteria as to what is a cult, at least in the popular sense used by the media. Nevertheless, I don't agree that the proposal would leave in unattributed opinions because then the reference is not made "by" the media source, but by the anonymous people to whom it refers. The Opus Dei source is not an example of inclusion based on unattributed opinions, notwithstanding the passage inside stating that critics have referred to it as a cult; the reason it is in there (yes, I put it there) is because The Scotsman itself labels it as a 'secretive sect' in the title.
- I don't think 90% of the list would go away. To be honest I assumed most inclusions were where the media itself has made such a reference; it would be quite disappointing to discover that the effect of the rules has been to allow anyone's loony rant to land a group on this page, just because the media reported on it. I'll have a look when I have more time. -- Really Spooky 10:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Groups referred to as cult in government reports
- This subsection is getting rather long, and I surmise that there are more sources that could be added to expand this further. I suggest moving this information to a new article:
- This is a much less subjective approach, and would therefore require much less discussion with regards to inclusion on the respective article's talk page. Smee 14:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
-
- I like your idea. However, if that is done I think this page needs to be renamed to something like "Groups that have been referred to as cults in non-governmental sources" -- Really Spooky 00:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- That would be a completely separate discussion I think. Smee 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
- I like your idea. However, if that is done I think this page needs to be renamed to something like "Groups that have been referred to as cults in non-governmental sources" -- Really Spooky 00:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Were the government reports to be separated, I suspect they would eventually undergo a lot of entropy in ways more clever than I can fully imagine. However, I might not oppose one of [Will Beback's]
jossi'sproposals, which is to duplicate the list there and see just what happens to it. If LOGRTAC's bad old problems recrudesce there, then a 'backup copy' is still protected under the rules here, which would also resolve Spooky's well-taken point. - But it's a risk. The various opponents of cult-reference public reporting will view it as a divide and conquer opportunity.
- I agree there are a lot more government reports to come. But if viewed only as a technical size problem, I think there's a better way to accommodate them: the standard linked pages system, used for example at List of drugs. Milo 06:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Re-edited to correct fact 06:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- See newly created article, at: List of groups referred to as cults in government reports, and you get the idea. Yes, if more and more government reports are inputted, then the article can be modeled after List of drugs, I like that idea... Smee 06:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Smee, I don't understand why you keep deleting the government reports from LOGRTAC. The consensus to date-time is for duplication, not deletion. In case you hadn't noticed, I did help you get most of what you wanted. Yet your response appears politically unappreciative, suggesting that I shouldn't help you the next time you want support for your editing agenda. If you just wanted to advertise LOGRTACIGR, you should have used a Dummy edit summary; if that's the case, please self-revert and restore the government reports. Milo 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did not mean to offend, just thought you might wish to take a look at the other article as well and see if a reference here would be sufficient. If you revert it back in I will not contest. Apologies if anything was misconstrued as being politically unappreciative. Yours, Smee 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Well, "offend" is too strong for labeling my disappointments in political logrolling, consensus logrolling in our case. I was surprised and disappointed that you misread what I had agreed to, since you are usually careful about reading consensus negotiations. IMHO, you misread consensus twice in the last three days, so maybe you've got some real-world distractions, whatever.
"see if a reference here would be sufficient" No, that intention didn't come across to me. I did look, and the LOGRTACIGR article is coming unglued already from its modestly stable form here. Of necessity, the two copies are going to become different, if only because LOGRTAC's rules prohibit the listing of established religions, even if they are in the original report.
That may be necessary for it to achieve a new and useful form. But if instead, major religion, pro-cult, and anti-reporting [partisans] dismantle it — that's why I want a 'backup copy' here. Milo 09:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Pardon, re-edited to delete and replace odious metaphor. 07:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is the point in duplication? Either the new article should be removed or this section here - or the heading could stay with a link to the new article, as per Smeelgova's original edit. Sfacets 00:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't expect to convince you, but as a pro forma courtesy...
- They will not be exact duplicates. The two articles will diverge in a variety of ways due to having different rules. Actually, being without any rules, attacks on the LOGRTACIGR list have already begun. Not sure, but it might not survive AfD once the major religion partisans find it.
- From a philosophical standpoint LOGRTAC is now ephemeral tabloid gossip without at least the French Report as its reporting mandate. So far I'm only aware that jossi and myself get the big picture. I think that's why he wanted it back in December 2006. Milo 09:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Milo, I would respectfully ask you to consider carefully the implications of some of the things you have just said. And I would ask you to honestly mull over them for a while before responding, because I mention them in good faith.
- You have just called people (or at least their actions) who think this page should not selectively exclude references to major religions or who are “pro-cult” (?!) or “anti-reporting” as ‘termites’ who you fear will ‘dismantle’ the page. You might think about whether that reflects a true desire for consensus.
- You have also stated that LOGRTAC “is now ephemeral tabloid gossip without at least the French Report as its reporting mandate”. If the effect of the French Report’s existence on this page is to confer an air of legitimacy on what is otherwise “ephemeral tabloid gossip”, it definitely belongs on a different page. I also find this admission quite revealing, because I seem to recall a couple of months ago you were pushing to make listing on this page the definitive criteria for inclusion in Category:Cults, using the argument that media sources allegedly have multiple editors and lawyers carefully scrutinising each and every use of the term so that any reference to a group as a ‘cult’ is virtually an unimpeachable fact. You have also consistently opposed inclusions revealing that media usage of the term is actually far more indiscriminate than that.
- What, then, is the ‘big picture’ that you say only you and jossi see? Because you’re right, I don’t get it. -- Really Spooky 15:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- • "You have just called people (or at least their actions)..." Sorry, that didn't come out right. I shouldn't have used the word like that and I've re-edited to replaced it with "partisans". You'll just have to take my word for it that I wasn't thinking of the actions of regular editors in the cult topics. It is, however a vivid metaphor for what I think could happen to the list itself.
- • "You might think about whether that reflects a true desire for consensus." Of course not — it's nearly related. My statement reflects a true desire to implement my editing agenda, just as you have a true desire to implement yours. Consensus is initially unrelated to agendas, but through process emerges as a Venn congruency among agendas.
- • "I also find this admission quite revealing," Um, no. You jumped to a wrong conclusion of my supposed inconsistency, because you missed the metalevel context shift at the beginning of my statement: "From a philosophical standpoint LOGRTAC is now ephemeral tabloid gossip without at least the French Report as its reporting mandate." The metalevel of philosophy, scales most human activities toward the trivial and ultimately insignificant; think of an analogous physical view from space.
- The disclosed philosophical context shift also means that I didn't make any literal statement about tabloid journalism at LOGRTAC. In practice, the reliable source editors and lawyers do scrutinize on. If you have any interest in learning how cautiously this fact-checking process can work within media organized as reliable sources, I suggest renting a DVD of All the President's Men.
- • "unimpeachable" Please don't exaggerate my nuanced positions like that.
- • "You have also consistently opposed inclusions revealing that media usage of the term is actually far more indiscriminate than that." Dunno, I'd have to see those statements to tell you why I opposed them.
- • "What, then, is the ‘big picture’ ... Because you’re right, I don’t get it." The global nexus of new religions and government. Milo 07:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Milo,
- 1. I am glad to see that you have thoughtfully amended your comments, and I note your admission that you have an editing agenda for this page. Just out of curiosity, what is that agenda?
- 2. I also thank you for your educational response. Until now I didn’t know that was called a Venn congruency (honestly, no sarcasm here). That is a very nice verbal image for consensus, however, I must use it myself. Where is your Venn congruency with the ‘major religion partisans’?
- 3. Sorry, I should have clarified that I found your admission revealing from a philosophical standpoint.
- 4. I note your advice to consult All the President's Men (a cracking good film, by the way), but I'm afraid I prefer to stick with the everyday reality of the media rather than Hollywood’s glamorisation of it. Besides, there is absolutely no comparison between the scrutiny that would be given to an accusation of high crimes directed at the President of the United States and a sucker punch to a small, marginal and unpopular group by calling it a cult, which by definition cannot be proven or disproven anyway. Moreover, even if it could be proven as a ‘fact’ that a group is a ‘cult’, the reality of media reporting (as any person who has been personally involved with events reported in the media will know) is that the media gets things frightfully wrong frightfully often. Of course, that is to be understood, often they are simply doing the best job they can given society’s demand for information in a matter of hours or even real time. But add to that this list’s inclusion of quotes of what other people have said, and I think your characterisation of the media references as “ephemeral tabloid gossip” is pretty damn accurate, whether from a philosophical standpoint or not.
- 5. Did I write ‘unimpeachable’? Sorry, I meant ‘virtually unimpeachable’. Wait, I did write ‘virtually unimpeachable’. Apology withdrawn. Please don’t exaggerate my nuanced positions like that.
- 6. When I noted your consistent opposition to media references to groups as ‘cults’ that are far more indiscriminate than might otherwise be evident from this page, I had in mind, not any group in particular, but your repeated (and sometimes successful) efforts to impose rules gradually narrowing the scope of this page to fit a preconceived notion of ‘cult’ shared by those who you call ‘global citizens’ (from what I can tell, people that share your view), which is, at its heart, artificial because such a common notion simply doesn’t exist in the media. For example, see under the heading “Exposed paradox forcing article rules change”, where you suggest that references to more mainstream religions can be made to “go away” by introducing the 1920 ‘seniority’ criteria. But then, I guess that's just part of your editing agenda.
- 7. If the ‘big picture’ of this page is the ‘global nexus of new religions and government’, perhaps that’s what it should be called instead. But then the rules would have to be changed to exclude all the media and academic references, because they have nothing to do with that topic. Except, of course, those from totalitarian states that microcontrol the media and academia: there such references might actually reflect government views and policy.
I do apologise in advance if any of the above seems a bit combative, please be assured I have nothing against you personally, just a good-natured ribbing, as I am feeling a bit feisty today. In fact, I sincerely hope your inclusion on the List of users referred to as sockpuppets turns out to be nothing more than ephemeral tabloid gossip, notwithstanding the fact that it is only a single qualifying reference (1) in North American English, (2) in reference to a specified user account, (3) made in the past 50 years, (4) reliably known to not have existed prior to 1920, and (5) and not in the meaning used in popular culture. -- Really Spooky 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Original foreign list duplication proposal
PS -- I must of course leave jossi to speak for himself if he wishes to do so, but my reading of his comments above (under 'Proposal') is that he wanted quite the opposite, rather that the whole thing should be moved to the parliamentary commission page. After all, it was he that put the merger tags on in the first place. -- Really Spooky 15:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- His actual [RfC, including Will Beback's] duplication proposal is here. Milo 07:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Re-edited to correct facts 05:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I note the editor didn't sign, so I'll just have to take your word for it. But the 'proposal' you linked to is actually an RfC, so even if jossi was the author, that is no more than a proposal to ask for the opinions of other editors on a point in which the two of you were in fact in direct disagreement, which the preceding context makes abundantly clear. -- Really Spooky 11:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "that is no more than" Whew, please lose the Wikilawyering (subverting greater principles or holistic findings of fact by arguing lesser technicalities like voice, standing, and format) [but too moot to debate further in this instance].
- In whatever form, the idea was first presented by [Will Beback]
him. The shortest distance between two negotiating positions is rarely as the crow flies. I appreciate his having [included in an RfC]indirectly suggesteda compromise that was not his preferred editing agenda. - "I note the editor didn't sign, so I'll just have to take your word" Or you could make the effort to research it in the history pages. Milo 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Re-edited to correct facts 05:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Actually, that is nowhere near “Wikilawyering”. I was specifically referring to substance, not form, as you are perfectly well aware. Jossi’s clear and unambiguous position was to oppose duplication, on which point he directly disagreed with you. That is what the RfC was about, as anyone reading it and the surrounding context can plainly see; if there was any ‘compromise’, it was to seek the comments of other editors, not to support duplication. To be fair, another user, Will Beback, seemed to support your position, perhaps it was him you that initially had in mind. Anyhow, I’m going to discontinue this thread now, I am not here to speak for jossi anyway. -- Really Spooky 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for finding the research links, you're correct — list duplication was Will Beback's proposal on 07:41, 26 December 2006. Jossi then appropriately included it in the unsigned RfC [25], but did not support it, nor suggest it as compromise.
- With your correction of the facts, my Wikilawyering complaint is now too moot to be worth further debate. (Btw, for future debates, note that you must have state-of-mind evidence to claim "as you are perfectly well aware".) Milo 05:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Sorry for not taking the trouble to set out my 'state-of-mind' evidence, I thought it self-evident. The evidence is that the substance of my comment was in the very same sentence to which you replied. If your error was because you failed to read to the end of the sentence or allow the information to register in your mind before replying, however, do accept my apologies. ;) -- Really Spooky 10:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Groups referred to as cult in the media (moved)
- This subsection is also getting rather long. I now propose spinning this one off into its own article, List of groups referred to as cults in the media. Then, the rest of this article would simply be moved to List of groups referred to as cults in academic sources. Thoughts? Smee 08:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
- I oppose dividing the LOGRTAC article, or duplicating parts other than the government reports, which was a [Will Beback]
jossiproposal that I'm being collegial about not opposing. One risky experiment at a time is enough. Milo 08:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)- Okay, fair point. We can give it some time. Smee 08:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
-
-
- For the record, I like what Smee is doing and support the proposal. -- Really Spooky 10:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if there is some doubt among other editors I have no problem waiting a while. Smee 14:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
- For the record, I like what Smee is doing and support the proposal. -- Really Spooky 10:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Discussing, deleting, reverting foreign lists
Regarding move to, and/or duplication, of List of groups referred to as cults's foreign lists, in List of groups referred to as cults in government reports
Could we continue the discussion there? One good think about splitting this article is that now there is a nice white discussion page awaiting editors after the jump :) Sfacets 07:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- They say one good think deserves another. :) Milo 08:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, Milo, I think you may have misconstrued my intentions, and for that I'm sorry. Again, I have no objections if you want to add the material back into this article as well. Smee 13:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
- Ok, but there's a social editing stats issue; I did that rv once already. If I do it again it counts further against my social RR score (not just 3RR), this time apparently for no good reason. If you self-revert, it doesn't count against yours (see WP:3RR "self-reverting"). Milo 07:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I followed your request and re-inserted the material, User:Sfacets promptly removed it again seconds later. See above. Smee 08:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Foreign lists partial-duplication debate
I have reverted Smeelgova's re-insertion of duplicate content, we should arrive at a consensus; there is no good reason to maintain duplicate information. Sfacets 08:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that I was the one who originally removed the material in the first place, and added it back in as a follow-up to Milo's request, so that Milo would not have to revert it back in. Smee 08:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
-
- Noted, consider the removal all my initiative. Sfacets 08:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
"there is no good reason to maintain duplicate information" It surprised me too, but so far there are eight good-to-ok reasons:
- Milo 09:13, 8 Mar 2007 "They will not be exact duplicates. The two articles will diverge in a variety of ways due to having different rules. "..."the two copies are going to become different, if only because LOGRTAC's rules prohibit the listing of established religions, even if they are in the original report."
- Will Beback wrote 22:34, 25 Dec 2006: "this is the "List of groups referred to as cults", unless we want to change the title to "List of groups referred to as cults except by government reports". "
- Will Beback wrote 17:56, 25 Dec 2006 "The overall purpose of this article is to list groups that have been referred to as cults by legitimate sources. The list is improved by having more sources. I think that splitting off sources into their own articles would weaken the article."
- Will Beback wrote 07:41, 26 Dec 2006: "This may be one of the rare circumstances when it's worthwhile to duplicate content. It's valuable to have the list here, but it also makes the other article more complete."
Really Spooky wrote 22:17, 25 Dec 2006: "it allows readers to quickly wikilink to the articles about those groups"[Really Spooky doesn't agree with his words being taken out of context to forward a view he did not and does not support, 17:13, 10 Mar 2007]- Milo wrote 12:18, 26 Dec 2006: "The future reporting strength and research popularity of List of groups referred to as cults [...] depends on integration of the foreign listings."
- Milo wrote 12:18, 26 Dec 2006: "fairness to the listed groups (obscurity in large numbers), LOGRTAC should not be split up"
- Milo wrote 12:18, 26 Dec 2006: "What makes LOGRTAC an acceptable repository for these lists, is the NPOV rules that balance the several POV interests of reporting proponents with the several POV interests opposed to reporting."
- Milo 14:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Re-edited 07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have struck my 'reason' from the above, because I wrote that before the List of groups referred to as cults in government reports was created and the corresponding content migrated there. The wikilinks remain on that page, which was the real substance of my comment, and I think the decision to separate the references in media and government sources was the right one for three reasons:
- This page is getting quite long;
- The media and government references are unrelated and lumping them together on this page blurs the context in which they were made; and
- In particular, the uniform application of the inclusion rules -- even to references within a single government report that clearly uses one and the same meaning for all the groups included -- produces an result that is self-evidently artificial and selective and designed to reflect a POV unrelated to that of the reports' authors. It also creates the false impression that governments and the media are of one mind about the subject.
- Having said that, I'm not going to revert anything quite yet until we see a wider representation of views, I just don't like my name being used to create a false impression of greater support for re-inclusion than actually exists, since I expressly supported the migration of the list.
- PS - As to the concern surrounding the title, that is why I recommended renaming this page "List of groups referred to as cults in non-governmental sources" when the new page was created. Be that as it may, however, I see no necessary contradiction -- even after the migration a link between the articles remained. -- Really Spooky 17:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have struck my 'reason' from the above, because I wrote that before the List of groups referred to as cults in government reports was created and the corresponding content migrated there. The wikilinks remain on that page, which was the real substance of my comment, and I think the decision to separate the references in media and government sources was the right one for three reasons:
"This page is getting quite long" What is your definition of "quite long"? What practical evidence do you have that it matters? Milo 00:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Milo, I am primarily guided by Wikipedia guidelines on article size. Before the article was split, it carried a MediaWiki ‘long page warning’ like this:
-
Note: This page is 65 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.
-
-
- The practical evidence (from a technical and stylistic standpoint) is set out on the guidelines page. More specific to this article, however, I think (in addition to reasons 2 and 3 identified in my post above) the evidence that the separation has made a positive practical difference can be seen from the debate taking place on the talk page of the new article, which has shifted to matters of substance and content and away from endless argument over the effect of the ad hoc inclusion rules on this page, which has been a source of much controversy. -- Really Spooky 20:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
Milo,
- There will be considerable uneeded overlap where most, if not all of the entries will co-exist on both articles.
- There is a heading titled Groups referred to as "cult" in government reports linking to an article containing the information.
- All the different entries have separate sources, why would splitting the article weaken it, since none of the remaining sources will be removed
- Same point as above, also I fail to see how it would make the other article more complete.
Really Spooky wrote 22:17, 25 Dec 2006: "it allows readers to quickly wikilink to the articles about those groups"- There is a link towards the new article.
- Not sure what hat has to do with anyhing
- Rules can be established for the new article as well.
Sfacets 00:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• 1&4) "considerable uneeded overlap" In this "partial-duplication" debate, it's a given that there will be overlap, but Will Beback (07:41, 26 Dec 2006) and I think it's justified because of the other advantages described.
• 2) "There is a heading ... linking to an article containing the information"
- The linked article is not subject to LOGRTAC rules, and therefore is not part of it;
- what is not part of LOGRTAC likely will be perceived as (even) less fair than LOGRTAC;
- there is no one-stop compendium linking convenience as before;
• 3a) "why would splitting the article weaken it" Because it's an axiomatic principle that divide and conquer works, and this page has a periodic parade of opponents who will take advantage of it. The textbook example of that principle is the rise (and decline) of the former British Empire in which you live.
• 3b) "none of the remaining sources will be removed" You may think that, but that's an assumption that is contrary to the principle, so I place no bets on it. Furthermore, it requires constant monitoring to maintain the sources LOGRTAC has, and now there's four venues to watch instead of two (article + talk). Want proof? See my comment (07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)) to Smee about his explained absence from this debate, due to working at the other article.
• 6) "There is a link towards the new article" Yes, but it's harder to load and compare an off-article government list, with the media and other lists here. Combined with the loss of one-stop access to links, LOGRTAC becomes yet less attractive to researchers and other readers. I do this research for article maintenance, and it's less convenient and attractive for me.
• 7) Milo wrote: "fairness to the listed groups (obscurity in large numbers)" Those who think LOGRTAC's listed groups don't get enough fairness should pay attention. Gatorgalen was quite reasonably complaining about a 'mild' group being on the same list as a destructive cult, and I have long agreed. The larger the list, the relatively less a 'mild' group suffers from being listed. Including the government listings, there were 300-some groups. Without the government lists, there are 80-some (last time I checked), which by math is roughly four times more exposure for a single group.
• 8) "Rules can be established for the new article as well" Yes, they could, and should, but given the failure of the LOGRTAC rules to propagate to the Category:Cult, I won't bet on it. And even if they did propagate, it would be twice as many things to monitor and protect, and probably they would morph anyway due to a different consensus there.
Divide and conquer works. Less satisfied users due to loss of compendium, more opponents attracted by the media listings as Wikipedia traffic increases, divided attention from regular editors, equals an article more likely to be disassembled.
On the other hand if LOGRTAC has its own internal copies, LOGRTACIGR can develop as it needs to (or get AfD'd) without pressure to conform to LOGRTAC. Those editors who want to again list major religions as cults, could struggle with preachers, priests, and imams at LOGRTACIGR without taking down LOGRTAC to do it. I had enough of that last year. Milo 07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break, discussing namings of lists
- I haven't yet had the time to read through all of the discussion above, after working on the other article. Please notify me if y'all come to some sort of consensus regarding any major changes here - I'd like to give input at some point soon... Smee 18:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
-
- Proving my point about divide and conquer, in a delicately balanced consensus, you were the proximate cause for this full government cultwatch lists division to occur, you couldn't unring the bell, and now you are over there (at LOGRTACIGR) instead of participating in LOGRTAC's partial-duplicate integration debate. Being over there is your input.
- Now having said that, it's still just an encyclopedia article. Milo 07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- FWIW, there has been a question about the material in #Foreign lists partial-duplication debate. The quotations of my earlier comments are accurate and reflect my view of this matter. -Will Beback · † · 18:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] New inclusion in list of cults [S-U]
A new entry has been made (SRCM) in the list, which was removed, it will be nice incase topics are discussed here before any point is removed from web, lets respect the right to information which is essence of wiki.
Tnx.
JS --Jhonsmith1234 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some checking of the sources given would help
I've deleted:
It's the statement of one person, and even a person like Vaclav Klaus isn't good enough for inclusion here. If not anybody wants to create a new section Groups referred to as "cult" by politicans. --Pjacobi 00:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear as though Klaus actually called environmentalism a cult (or a sect) in his speech. The statement of one person, street urchin or President, in a UPI report would meet the media section rules, but Klaus certainly wasn't quoted that way in this source. However, right wing bloggers are now mentioning Klaus and using the "cult" word, so it may not be too long before LOGRTAC gets a valid source from the pen of a conservative columnist in a major newspaper. Milo 11:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- If someone gets interviewed or a speech of him is dissected in media, that doesn't meet the media section rules. --Pjacobi 11:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Can you quote the rule you are referring to, that would exclude a media reference from the the media section?? Milo 18:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The rules reference WP:RS, which in its discussion of primary, secondary and tertiary sources makes clear what it is necessary for reliable journalistisc source. Also please use some logic: An article simply discussing a speech of Joe Hackenschuss where this politican denounces Jimmy Wales as a cult leader, is only a RS for just that (that in Joe's opinion, Jimbo is cult leader). Only when journalistic analysis kicks in (several primary sources are integrated and opinions are weighted), then a RS for Jimbo being a cult leader may surface. --Pjacobi 19:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Ok, then this isn't about LOGRTAC article rules, except by reference to WP:RS. I'm not dismissing your issue, but it could get confounded by WP:RS undergoing merger talks with at least WP:VER and WP:OR (according to a banner that appeared for a while yesterday).
- • Separating the rules issues from the logic analysis that you mention, how about first quoting here the relevant sentences of WP:RS that you think supports your above stated position by rules reference for primary, secondary and tertiary sources? Milo 21:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
(reset)
• "I've given already the pointer into WP:RS"
Very well, I've read it (WS:RS#Types of source material).
"which in its discussion of primary, secondary and tertiary sources makes clear what it is necessary for reliable journalistic source." Pardon, I think that is not correct, but I can see how you and other editors could have gotten that impression. Over the the last year or so, I've watched the Wikiguide Wikipedia:Reliable sources get edit-beavered away to the point where it is confusing. I suggest reference to its intended replacement Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources.
• The concepts of reliable source (fact checked) and types of source (primary, secondary and tertiary) are different.
Pjacobi wrote: "An article simply discussing a speech of Joe Hackenschuss where this politican denounces Jimmy Wales as a cult leader, is only a RS for just that (that in Joe's opinion, Jimbo is cult leader). Only when journalistic analysis kicks in (several primary sources are integrated and opinions are weighted), then a RS for Jimbo being a cult leader may surface."
A reliable or unreliable source can contain any type of source in any combination. Containing a particular type of source (i.e., secondary) does not make a source reliable. You decide, but here's what I think you mean:
I write: A hypothetical article that only prints a speech by Joe where this politican denounces Jimmy as a cult leader, is a primary source for Joe's statement (attributing that Joe really did say Jimbo is cult leader). Only when journalistic analysis kicks in (several primary sources are integrated and opinions are weighted), then a secondary source may surface -- suitable to properly attribute an assertion in a tertiary source (encyclopedia), that Jimbo really is a cult leader.
• Finally, I'll address what may be your actual concern, about LOGRTAC listings of cult references in primary sources. Because they are references ("referred to"), LOGRTAC can list primary sources, as long as they are also published by a fact-checking (reliable) source. Why? Because a reference is descriptive. A reference says, 'Here is a place where c-u-l-t appears.' The Wikiguide authority to do this is stated in both Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Attribution:
"Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge."
The Klaus article reference that you deleted is an example of a LOGRTAC descriptive claim (though referring to a secondary source). By being listed, LOGRTAC implied that the UPI story "Czech Pres: Environmentalism is a religion" contained the words "cult" or "sect". I clicked on the URL, and did a page search for "cult" and "sect", but they weren't present. The descriptive claim failed, so that reference should not be listed. Milo 09:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I still disagree. And it's a rather important point. I'm under the opinion, your interpretation would be rather disastrous for Wikipedia. But as know, I find this list to be an abomination anyway (must resist the urge to try AfD again...) I don't see a big point to discuss it here. Maybe it must be discussed at at WP:ATT or we can move it to one of our user discussion pages. --Pjacobi 09:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
