Talk:List of purported cults/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Something needs to be done with the 2 lists 2 Votes for removal of the entire list 3 Bruderhof 4 Bulk removals 5 Unification Church 6 Scientology 7 Evidence of harm 8 Accuracy dispute warning 9 Jews for Jesus 10 International Churches of Christ 11 Is Wikipedia a place for moral debates? 12 Votes for deletion debate 13 Now, what are we going to do with this article/list? 14 Good references 15 This article does not make sense 16 Yet another attempt to NPOV this article 17 Unification Church 18 SSB 19 Sahaya Yoga (dup entry) 20 Rastafari

Something needs to be done with the 2 lists

I suggest a merger. As for now, will try to improve what's already here untill some consensus is reached. Will move Primerica here (gonna make a good company to Al Quaeda). And there are non religious cults such as political cults, music cults, environmental cults et cetera. After reading the talk pages on both lists, I now think it is extremely important to provide information on those purported cults as well.

Votes for removal of the entire list

Here I suggest to vote for removal of this page. I think it is contrary to the Wikipedia spirit to list the "cults", be it "purported" or "confirmed". There was a popular viewpoint, recognized officially at the goverment level in South Africa, about inferiority of Blacks. That does not mean, however, that we should create a "list of purported dirty negroes", as if "dirty negro" is a scientific term.

"Cult" is a derogatory word, it is not neutral. Therefore, you cannot "accuse" a new religion movement of being "a cult", you can either name it cult or apply a neutral, precise and objective term - NRM.

It is not NPOV to maintain a list of NRMs "popularly called" cults, a derogatory word, then explaining why they are called so "to add balance". Otherwise we could start compiling lists of purported imbeciles, communist whackos etc.

I suggest the following:

1) Remove the "purported cults list" totally. 2) Add the religious movements mentioned in this list to "new religious movements". 3) From now on, mention accusations in being "cults" only is corresponding articles on those NRMs.

Let us vote here for removal, preferably clearly - yes or no. Please sign your edits.

P.S. There is a similar list of "controversial new religious movements" where similar criteria (popularity) is being used to define whom to include. Let's discuss its fate on corresponding talk page as well (what bothers me is amount of controversy needed to consider an NRM controversial).

Articles may be removed from Wikipedia only after a specified process that uses the page Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. As is discussed further down this page, this article has recently been through that process, and there was no consensus to delete it. I believe there may be a minimum time period before an article may be re-nominated for deletion; in any event, it must be done through that Wikipedia page. --Gary D 21:58, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this page. Hasn't just about every religious group been called a cult by somebody? --Eric (himself a member of a "cult")

The purpose is to list the organizations which are commonly considered cults. I agree that if people start posting "Catholic Church" that won't be very informative. Feel free to edit the instructions if you'd like. --AriPap

But that's my point. There are groups that consider the Catholic church to be a cult. I remember a few years back about someone calling a Baptist church in Texas a cult. Just about any religious group could be included.

---

The word has been redefined by common use. The former use of cult from Latin cultus was pretty much any systematic religious practice by an individual or group, and its use largely confined to specialists or the relatively well-read. In the last 30 or 40 years, after many sensational stories reported in the media revolving around various groups, the formally neutral descriptor cult became increasingly associated in the public imagination with fringe groups led by people with more of a political agenda (expressed in a concern for control over their followers' behaviour) than a conventional religious ethic; a convention that could be paraphrased as "be kind to all people and teach by example." So the issue is; which religious groups or cults are reported to attempt the exercise of types of coercive control, mental, emotional or physical, over their members, to what degree is that reported, and by whom? The rebuttals, or links to them, to those reports by the groups themselves (if such exist) should certainly be provided. In the interest of the principle of informed choice, I feel it is important that people have access to such information (if it is presented objectively), and its attempted suppression can certainly be seen as evidence of coercive tendencies in its suppressors!

Fire Star 15:27, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am also thinking that access to some information is important. Currently thinking about starting a couple of lists, to promote informed choice. The list of dirty negroes and, perhaps, something else. I am sure that scientific research is still available for the topic (thougt outdated somewhat) and individuals or groups accused of being such will also have opportunity to speak up, totally NPOV-compliant.

Bruderhof

Like some others have commented, I'm not sure this page is all that good. Concerning the Bruderhof, I have no personal reason to believe they are a "cult". But, User 64.72.66.122 seems intent on removing anything on Wikipedia that might be construed as negative concerning them. It is a fact that a number of "ex-Bruderhof" people do purport that it is a "cult" or has "totalitarian" tendencies. They may be wrong, but the intent of this page does not seem to be to judge whether they are wrong, just that they "purport" it. Perhaps the Bruderhof section could be improved by adding some reasons current members use to offset the charge? - Rlvaughn 22:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Why not junk this page, and use a more useful and neutral term, such as controversial religious groups? If we make clear we only mean "groups over which there has been widespread controversy, including significant negative media coverage", we include all the so called "cults", without including the Catholic Church or anything similar. (Particular actions of the Catholic Church may be controversial, but no one anywhere near the mainstream will even insinuate that it is essentially bad, which some will for the "cults".)

Among other problems, there are four completely distinct definitions of cult (the Anti-Cult definition, the Counter-Cult definition, the Sociological definition, the traditional definition), with at least the first two in common use. Which sense are you using here? Lumping together different completely concepts that happen to have the same name is not useful. -- SJK

---

My suggestions:

1. The list of cults, if we are to have one, could go on the cult page.
2. Include with each cult: (A) Who says it's a cult, and (B) what reasons do they give.

If you look on http://www.religioustolerance.org you will find several distinct definition of "cult" ranging from positive (used in Catholicism) to very negative (People's Temple mass suicide). Most of the time, the term "cult" is applied to groups in between the two extremes, but it can be misleading: an established church with a history of non-violence (Jehovah's Witnesses) is lumped in with homicidal or suicidal maniacs. Is this what the Wikipedia should do? Ed Poor

Incorrect or poorly-worded sentence:

"As described in the Cult article, there is considerable disagreement as to which entities deserve the designation, so this page exists merely to list those which are commonly described as such without ascribing moral value. "

The cult article contains not one shred of disagreement over which entities deserve the designation. In fact, not a single such entity is mentioned. What is in fact discussed in cult is the variety of definitions of the word.

Perhaps a better wording of the sentence would be:

There is considerable disagreement as to what kind of entity deserves the designation "cult".

By the way, I disagree with the sentence for another reason: calling an entity a "cult" does seem to be ascribing moral value to it, a negative or even highly negative one.

Ed Poor

---

I would say rather "There are a number of different, conflicting definitions of the word 'cult' in common use." Its not really a disagreement -- the users of one type of terminology (mostly) aren't insisting that their terminology is right and the other side's is wrong -- it is mainly a terminological difference (although the difference in terminology does also reveal some differences in underlying ideology.)

So:

There exist several different, conflicting, definitions of what a "cult" is in widespread use. And even once a definition is agreed upon, there is still sometimes widespread disagreement as to what entities fit under that definition.

Note that the amount of dispute depends on the definition. If you define a "cult" as "a dangerous religious group" then there is widespread disagreement as to what a cult is. If, on the other hand, you define a cult as a "small religious group with a high degree of tension with the surrounding society and a novel belief system" (which is the sociological definition), then there is very little disagreement as to what is and what is not a cult.

Also, Ed, you say "By the way, I disagree with the sentence for another reason: calling an entity a "cult" does seem to be ascribing moral value to it, a negative or even highly negative one." Depends on the definition of "cult" being used. The anti-cult movement definition (i.e. "dangerous religious group") and the counter-cult movement definition (i.e. "group with erroneous religious beliefs") are negative. However, the traditional definition (i.e. "group involved in religious worship") and the sociological definition (i.e. "group with high degree of tension with surrounding society and novel religious beliefs"), are neutral -- they do not ascribe any moral value at all. There is nothing wrong with being called a cult in the sociological sense (and there is no doubt that most of the groups called cults actually are cults, in that sense), and certaintly there is nothing wrong with being called a cult in the traditional sense (since just about all religions are cults in that sense). -- SJK

-- SJK

---

Speaking of NPV, invoking Jesus outside a Christian context--as in the remark about the Church of Scientology--seems to be assuming a Christian viewpoint. The problem, imho, with a for-profit church is that it's claiming nonprofit status under US law. -- Vicki Rosenzweig, neither Scientologist nor Christian

I've clarified that the remark about God and Mammon fits into the context of Christian beliefs. --Damian Yerrick

---

Should Christian Science and the LDS Church be here? The only reason given for labeling them cults is that they reject the Trinity and other Christian doctorines. Shouldn't this list be limited to purported cults as defined in the wikipedia article? (groups that exploit their members psychologically and financially using group-based persuasion techniques) - 65.94.49.192

• A cult is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as the normative expressions of religion in our total culture. Typically that revolves around a specific personality or leader other than say Jesus. If you can say so-and-so has started a religion based on a mis-interpretation of scripture then is classified a cult. Randyc 18:11 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is an objective definition in the cult article based on peer-reviewed publications which are listed at the article's end. Randyc's definition is one used by cult apologists in an effort to broaden the definition to the point of uselessness.

If we're going to have a Purported cults page, the best thing to do with it would be to incorporate a list from some other source rather than try to construct the list ourselves. However, I am unaware of any source that claims to publish such a list.

Almost all authorities agree that there are definitional gray areas, that is, that there is a continuum. On one extreme there are marginally abusive groups, on the other are the destructive, murderous, suicidal groups. A line is difficult to draw, and is all the more difficult because many marginally abusive groups vary geographically or have changed over time; some of the Pentecostal congregations have at times been pretty cultlike in their actions while other congregations are not.

Still, having a list is valuable. Mainstream media would perhaps be a better place to start than what we have now. I would think that if we were to list purported cults along with relevant references to articles about each one in publications such as Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, and the like, that we would build a valuable article.

Such publications are a more plausible starting point than the many cult-related books and web sites, as these are of questionable neutrality at best.

Kat 18:34 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

• Anyone that feels that a group should be included based on the criteria listed in the note at the top of the page should be allowed to regardless of dissention. Randyc 18:40 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The note at the top of page points to the cult page, which gives the definition above (groups that exploit their members...). The other definition given on that page is the literal meaning, a denomination of a religion. Obviously this page is only about groups which are acussed of being cults according to the first meaning (we already have a List of religions and a List of Christian denominations). - Efghij

---

I must disagree with Andries about Rajneesh's followers still being a cult. People receive "Sannyas names" from his followers to this day. They are very much organized and active here in Brazil, where in fact they are a _major_ influence in the New Age movement in general. In some cases one is hard pressed not to hear about "Osho" all the time when practicing, for instance, Biodanza. Of course, I don't know about the rest of the world - although I seem to recall hearing some sort of legal restriction in Europe a few years ago.

Yes, the Rajneeshis are still out in the world, teaching in force. The group may have become decentralised since Rajneesh's death, however, which is what I think Andries meant. Some mention should perhaps be made of the largest splinter groups and their behaviour subsequent to his death.

Fire Star 20:12, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Firestar, Luis, yes this is what I meant. A deceased person can't be a cult leader only because his books are still being sold even though his ideas may be destructive. There should some reference to the current individual groups that use Rajneesh' ideas. Andries 20:52, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Groups still to be added, Maharaj/premie/elan vital, Eckankar, Muktananda, Premananda, Kashi Ashram, FWBO and so many others. Please feel free to add them. Andries 21:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe that this page has got utterly out of hand. Characteristics of cults in general should be in cult. If there are allegations that any particular organisation is a cult, then it should be on the page for that organisation. DJ Clayworth 21:49, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth, then what is this article for according to you? Should it be just a list with links to the organizations without any justification here? I agree that it doesn't make sense to have the controversy duplicated here. Andries 22:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. Should it be here? DJ Clayworth 14:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the controversies should be discussed in the articles of the respective groups and not in this article. This article should only be a list of groups. Andries 19:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the title of this article could be different, but I feel that the article itself is important for someone potentially looking into current thinking on the issue of possibly manipulative groups commonly called cults. The distinction between this and the cult page itself should be that the original can be more technical and general, and this page more of a jumping off place for people interested in investigating the phenomenon in society. The neutrality of the citations to be carefully maintained, of course, and the citations themselves well referenced.

Fire Star 03:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bulk removals

Steve Hassan's website says

The fact that these groups appear on this list does not necessarily mean they are a destructive mind control cult. They appear because we have received inquiries and have established a file on the group.

Well, that's Mr. Hassan's policy, and he can do as he likes on his own website. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia dedicated to accuracy and neutrality.

Now if someone wants to write articles on Steve Hassan's views or Rick Ross's views, that's fine. I put links in the previous sentence. Follow those links and put all the info you can find on those two guy's websites into Wikipedia form with proper attribution, and you'll make a greate contribution.

But using the Wikipedia name to smear groups with a weasal-worded "don't take them off if you disagree" is not encyclopedia writing. It's propagandizing. --Uncle Ed 21:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And yet these and other groups are out there saying things and doing things to people in the real world. They may not seem like "cults" to a few people, but there are many different public perceptions of the activities of such groups. To deny patrons of Wikipedia information on those well reported perceptions (especially where allegations of manipulation are demonstrable, as is the case with several of the groups you have deleted) is another form of propaganda. If the article is removed the stories associated with some of these groups won't go away, but Wikipedians won't perhaps have as much access to them. In an open forum which purports to attempt a well rounded reference of human experience, NPOV demands both sides of the issues raised, issues affecting many thousands if not millions of people around the world, be addressed. Without that balance, information could become unavailable which may be vital for someone's assessment of a group they may potentially have contact with. Fire Star 02:17, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

well said Firestar although I have my doubts whether the article purported cults should be more than just a list of links to the individual groups.Andries 09:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding "there are many different public perceptions of the activities of such groups. To deny patrons of Wikipedia information on those well reported perceptions..." -- If you would like to contribute some text about public perceptions of various religious groups, you are of course free to add these to the respective articles on each group. If you want to create an article on religious prejudice I'd be happy to help collate and arrange it, with as much anti-religious hostility and bigotry as you can find. It's important to document hate speech and bigotry.

But dignifying POV is another thing. The main aim of deprogrammers and other opponents of certain new religious groups is (a) to discredit those groups as "cults" and (b) to aggrandize themselves at their expense, as by making money kidnapping people and browbeating them out of their faith. We should write accurately and neutrally about people like that -- rather than cooperating with their aims or doing their dirty work for them. --Uncle Ed 15:43, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Concerns about the activities of religious groups isn'tnecessarily hate speech. Although, I am interested in all sides of this issue, and many of the deprogrammers do seem to have similar motives to those they assign to their enemies. I am pressed for time now, but I will be back later...

Regards,

Fire Star 16:02, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

(Moved from cult talk page):

Unification Church

I just reviewed the characteristics section. Each "cult" characteristic either (a) does not apply at all to the Unification Church, or is a well-known characteristic of large mainstream religions like Roman Catholicism.

Therefore, the Unification Church should be taken of the list of "purported cults".

If there is an advocate who is an organization leader or a published author who wants to make accusations, we can report the fact that he made an accusation, and also report on rebuttals. But softening the accusation with the word purported is not enough. Either provide evidence, or testimony -- otherwise, leave out the claim altogether. --Uncle Ed 19:51, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I am a member of the Unification Church)

The machinations of Moon, his tax troubles and the behaviours of members of his organization have been in the news for over twenty years. Moon ordering his followers to marry each other isn't manipulative? It is an easy thing to to document those and other bizarre features of his church (and it has been done to some degree on the Unification Church page), and I think that I might spend some time doing so.Fire Star 04:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1. What machinations? Please add these to the Unification Church article before listing the church as a "purported cult".
2. Please explain why having tax troubles means his church is a cult.
3. Which behavior of members? Be specific.
4. Moon did not order his followers to marry each other; all candidates for the UC marriage blessing are volunteers. If you know of any exceptions, please list them. Or if you have records of Rev. Moon "ordering" followers to marry, please cite these.
5. Please list the "bizarre features" in the Unification Church article, and then note which of these are "cult characteristics".

If you don't do any of the above, I think I can dismiss your objections as mere prejudice. --Uncle Ed 13:45, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Unification Church has a controversial reputation, considered by many times more people than follow Moon to be an idiosyncratic "cult" in the modern usage of the term. That they would acquire such a reputation is an interesting subject to me, personally, which I suppose makes me prejudiced in favour of shining some light on their activities. I am currently researching the origins and development of the controversy, and if I find enough evidence to support contributions to appropriate articles, I will contribute them. Contrary to your statements, I don't have to prove that they are a cult, I just have to show that many people have professed that they think they are a cult in order to report the phenomena, after all. If I don't find evidence, I won't. You, personally, may not think that what they do is bizarre, you may not think that they are manipulative - that Moon asks his followers to surrender their freedom of choice to his will. You may choose to dismiss reports of the public reputation of Moon and his followers as prejudice all you wish, but such a reputation is a widespread part of our popular culture and deserves to be mentioned. One person cannot define the usage of the word "cult," the total of native English speakers do. To set the bar as high as you seem to want to, to insist on proof that they are actually a "cult" to your satisfaction, otherwise disallowing any mention of the controversy surrounding them, suppresses information on the subjective phenomena of the public characterization of the Unification Church and by extension other, similar, religions. Wikipedia isn't an apologetics forum.Fire Star 15:28, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We might not disagree as much as you think. I am:

• against suppressing information on the subjective phenomena of the public characterization of the Unification Church
• against dismissing reports of the public reputation of Moon and his followers as prejudice
• for researching the origins and development of the controversy

I just don't like the idea of putting together a list of unpopular religious groups based on the premise that there's something wrong about each group. That's putting the cart before the horse.

If you want to create an article on the general public's attitude toward religions that they aren't part of, that's one thing. If you want to focus on controversial aspects of one particular church, that's another.

The information should go in the right place, properly labeled, that's all. Wikipedia should not condemn or endorse any church. --Uncle Ed 18:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I also believe that we are not as far apart as a casual observer would suspect. You have made some statements to the effect that other, mainstream, churches could fall under a very wide definition of cult-like behaviour, and I agree with that as well. There are things that other, very popular, groups do and say that would seem bizarre as well to the average, secular, person. Any characterization of a group should certainly take that into account, and be meticulously documented in the spirit of neutrality, as you say. That being said, there are groups have made some waves, and that perhaps should be the main focus; public reaction.

Regards, Fire Star 16:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)'

Firestar and all, even if it is true that the differences between new religious movements and mainstream churches are small, even then there is, I think, good reason to believe that the first cause more harm than the latter. The combination of being new and hence inpredictable and the intensity of the involvement of followers cause more (psychological) harm than the mainstream churches. I can't prove it but this is what I believe and have experienced and observed.Andries 19:07, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Andries,

That is the only point of the purported cults article, to my mind. That the actual behaviors and public reactions to activities of the "new religions" be reported. I believe it can be done with the proper qualifications. In which case, if you look into their histories, groups like the Unification Church or Scientology, or even older groups such as the LDS (Mormons), have a lot of what we may call "bad press" for whatever reason, and that can be reported neutrally, even if the subject of our article, the stories being reported, aren't neutral. I don't think, myself, that deletion is the way to go with these groups, rather a detailed rebuttal (if anyone cares to write one) should be in order. I'm still researching...

Regards, Fire Star 16:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Scientology

Cut from article:

The church is said to persuade some members to become slaves.

Who says? --Uncle Ed 18:41, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of harm

Anyone having evidence that an organization -- political or commercial or religious -- is harming people (members or outsiders); really ought to write a book or article about that. We could then report on their research here at Wikipedia.

The challenge is to do so in a neutral fashion. For example, much of the Arab world believes that Israel is committing "crimes against humanity" and should be condemned or even annihilated, because it keeps hanging on to land in the West Bank, etc. On the other hand, some people (mostly in the West) believe it is the Arabs who should be condemned or even punished for "terrorism" against Israelis.

It's just as hard to write about political and historical conflicts as it is to write about religious and social controversies. I try as hard as I can to be objective; let me know how I'm doing.

Let's work together towards accuracy and neutrality. --Uncle Ed 21:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute warning

I have given the article an accuracy dispute warning because I think some groups have been removed without good reason e.g. Bruderhof and Unification Church. Andries

If a "cult" is a religion which is regarded as spurious (quoting from Merriam-Webster's unabridged, third edition) -- then it depends on who is doing the regarding. I'd like to see the article recast into a different form:

1. A list of major religions, with links to articles explaining WHO regards them as spurious (and why); or,
2. Capsule entries for minor religions (same explanation)

--Uncle Ed 13:08, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would rather have the list too long than too short. I think there is some truth in your feeling that minority religions are given an unfair treatment if only they are listed here. Andries 18:51, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I want to add:"Some evangelical Christians from the Spiritual Counterfeits project think that the Roman Catholic Church is a cult" [1]

Jews for Jesus

Encountering one near UCLA - I observed the recruiter was not Jewish as he claimed. And CBS' 60 Minutes had run an article on this group as using their inductees as grunt labor to break down their wills. - Sparky 09:42, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great, Sparky. How could you tell this person wasn't a Jew just by looking at them? I hesitate to suggest possibilities. DJ Clayworth

a informative resource, on what is a cult and related topics:

http://www.americanreligion.org/cultwtch/index.html

people here should read. Xah P0lyglut 17:59, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

International Churches of Christ

I cut this entire section from the article, because there is no explanation whatsoever of why the religion is considered spurious. There is merely the objection to its exclusive claim on truth -- a claim nearly EVERY church makes to one degree or another -- which really falls under the category of heresy if anything; and the complaint that it seeks more devotion and commitment than the complainers are prepared to tolerate -- one may as well criticize Roman Catholics for running convents and Franciscan monasteries (no one calls these cults, even though they demand even greater devotion than ICC). --Uncle Ed 12:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

untrue Ed, almost all Christian churches say that one doesn't go to hell if one follows another denomination.Andries 14:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The International Churches of Christ is a Bible-based church claiming about 130,000 members (2001) that emphasizes total commitment to its teachings. It has been called a cult by both the Christian countercult movement and some secular critics. Although most of its theology is Evangelical, the Christian countercult movement has raised objections to its belief that it essentially is the only church following the true gospel. They and secular critics claim that the church is extremely aggressive in proselytizing, seeks to control its members, and exerts undue psychological pressue to keep people in the church. News reports indicate that some colleges have banned the church from proselytizing on their campuses.

The church responds to such allegations on its Web site:

What, then, do we say to the charge that we are a cult? If the charge is the same that was leveled against the early church, then we are glad to be identified with them. "But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect" (Acts 28:22). If, however, the charge is the same as that leveled against destructive extremist groups in our day, then we say, "No!" We, the members of the International Churches of Christ, are nothing more than disciples of Jesus Christ who are attempting to restore the movement that God began in the first century. That movement turned the world upside down in its day, just as we expect it to do today.

References

• http://www.icoc.org/ (official church site)
• http://www.reveal.org/ (site run by former members)

The ICC section needs to be repaired. Not only must we say who has branded it a "cult" but we must show HOW the evidence they present fits the definition of cult. Otherwise, simply move everything to the International Churches of Christ article and note that some former members call it a "cult". --Uncle Ed 12:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a place for moral debates?

I have read with interest the discussion in this page as well as the NPOV pages. I tend to agree with Uncle Ed that NPOV in this context is highly difficult and unless careful, Wikipedia gets hijacked by people to promote their own agenda of hate and fear. In my view, Wikipedia needs to remain neutral. Moral debates have no place in an encyclopaedia. The negative connotations of "cult" are self-evident. If you are accused to belong to a cult, your job, your business, your social life may be damaged as a result. What is the difference between shouting pejoratively "Jew!" or "Nigger!" or shouting "you are in cult!". No difference whatsoever... bigotry is bigotry is bigotry no matter how you dress it. Sorry...

With the negative associations to the world "cult, who owns the the moral high ground to decide what is a cult and what is not? None of us here. That is for sure.

So, my view is that this page should be deleted. --Jossifresco 19:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Votes for deletion debate

An archived version of the vfd debate for this article may be found at Talk:List of purported cults/Delete. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:31, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now, what are we going to do with this article/list?

The article/list has survived the Vote for Deletion poll. Now what are we going to do with it? I still think that my proposal is a good one and it was supported by several people. If nobody objects then I will do as I proposed. My proposal:

"Keep but use only for the clearest cases like People's Temple, Order of the Solar Temple, Heaven's gate, Branch Davidians and Manson Family. I think that the word "cult" has become so much a form of hate speech that the term has little added value. I mean as David V. Barret wrote in his book "The New Believers" one should focus on what the the controversial groups do and believe. Move the bulk of the groups on the list to List of controversial new religious movements which should only list groups that have, relative to their size, a lot of controversy around them. Andries"

Those are so well-accepted, one could nearly drop the word "purported." I think this page ought to be moved to something like "List of cults purported by countercultists". The content now nearly reflects that, and if the page is moved to the almost-meaningless "List of controversial new religious movements", then I'll create that as a seperate page. Countercutists are a notable group, and the specifics of their views deserve a page. The article only needs to be reshaped slightly to show that emphasis. CHL

CoolHandluke, I agree that Christian Countercultists are a notable group but they are not the only ones who are concerned about NRMs and cults. German, Chinese and French governments, skeptics, ex-members are also involved. Andries 16:56, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. I do think the current title is too vague. Anything can be purported a cult. Countercultists probably have the most expansive system of thought on these groups. I think government sanctions and and ex-member complaints do not form a body notable enough for seperate articles from the groups themselves. Much of the material here should probably be trimed and qualified to exclude these claims. However, I think countercultists claims are notable enough and apply to enough groups to merit a list. CHL 22:24, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about this as outline for a compromise: We move this page to something like Groups commonly cited by Christian countercultists (or something more poetic--I'm bad at titles.)

Although I think "purported cults" describes the page more acurately, the supposed cult status of these groups would be implied by title. Removing "cults" from the title makes the article less of a lightening rod. The opening line of the new article would say something like "Christian countercultists claim several religious movements are cults, especially controversial new religious movement."

The article under "list of purported cults" would be made into a disambigation page with discussion explaining why we don't want articles under "purported cults" to help avoid sectarian edit wars. The wikilinks here would be divided between the two articles (List of controversial new religious movements and the future "cited countercultists" article). These two articles would list each other as "See also"s. I'll also put the "cited by countercultists" article on my watchlist, do some research to make it more of an article explaining countercultists claims. - good? CHL 01:43, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not everyone who is counter cult is Christian. Some who are counter cult, are in fact atheists. Some have been members of a cult, unwittingly. Later, when they discovered the "stress reduction/meditation program" they attended was just an introduction to more involved, cult-like activities to come (including worship of the guru), they felt cheated, duped, mislead by false advertising claims. A fair percentage of people like this are the ones exposing meditation instructors and NRMs as cults. They've been on the inside and have seen what goes on. Now they see the Internet as an excellent way to expose what was formerly kept secret.

Some former cult members might even be offended by being lumped in with the Christian movement. Some want nothing more to do with religion or the group-think mentality.

Kill_Bossy, countercult is per definition Christian. Other opponents of cults belong to the anti-cult movement. Andries 16:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Andries, that's good to know. Both movements should probably be acknowledged, then. Kill Bossy

I like the idea of distinguising between two kinds of "cults":

• List of cults -- groups that are (A) generally called cults and (B) fit most of the criteria included in 'cult' checklists
• List of new religious movements -- other NRMs identified by sociologists which either (A) have not attracted the "cult" label very much or (B) fit too few of the criterias included in 'cult' checklists

Now I admit that this looks a bit self-serving, because my church gets the nice-sounding NRM tag this way. But I've spend the latter 3/5 of my life in the UC (1977-2004), and I can tell you from experience (not just scholarship) that it's not NEARLY as cult-like as People's Temple, etc. The indoctrination intensity, for example, is even lower than the US Marines.

I just worked as staff on 2 recent seminars for "new guests" (as we call our potential recruits), reporting directly to the NY Regional Director for Education. I was in the classroom or in personal conversation with guests most of the time. If there's some "brainwashing" technique going on, other than merely describing our beliefs, I failed to see it. Anyway, the RD (my friend Chen) isn't well-organized enough to be manipulative: he started the staff meeting by saying, "How do you guys think we ought to run this workshop?" (and his only personal instructions to me were: "Pick out some songs that match the theme of the next lecture" or "Please join in the discussion at lunch"). --Uncle Ed 19:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I believe what you write. It is even acknowleged in the book Recovery from Cults edited by Michael Langone who worked for the AFF. Not exactly and organization that I would call friends of the Unification Church. Andries 12:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not as opposed to this idea as I once was. I also like taking "controversial" out of the title for NRMs. I still think that there should be a page explaining Christian countercultists claims, but it would require more work to reshape this article than I'm currently able to give it. Groups like the unification church would certainly be mentioned (in part because they're commonly cited by countercultists and almost no one else), but I don't think it would be best to format it as a list.

This article should be turned into disambiguation so that the history can be used as the starting point of a countercultist article. Then we just move the new religious movement list to the new title (without "controversial.") CHL 10:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great idea, CHL! Tom - Talk 22:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good references

May I add two excelent refereneces:

Brainwashing debunked

and

Save sects?

Too much nonsense has been said by self-nominated money-seeking deprogrammers and by christian fundamentalists.

Yes. Agree. Add these please.--≈ jossi ≈ 19:45, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Please do. These references external links have added value. Andries 16:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article does not make sense

Purported Cult? What the heck is that?

What a lame attempt to use "cult" as vituperation.

Herbalife a cult? Give me a break.

--64.81.88.140 07:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Yet another attempt to NPOV this article

Here's a proposed re-formatting of this article to try to bring a more NPOV view to the groups in question. We know that many, many groups have been referred to as cults by 'someone; the problem here is comparing truly dangerous groups to simply minority ones. So here's a proposed revision:

The ongoing controversy regarding the definitions of a cult is examined in the Wikipedia article on cults. This article lists a number of organizations that have frequently been referred to as cults.

== Critiera for cult listings ==

Very few groups or organizations are willing to accept the label of "cult," and a number of groups have vehemently resisted such a classification. Accusations of cult behavior have been made against a great many groups, ranging from groups with minority views to outright criminal and terrorist organizations.

Because of the many differing viewpoints towards the classification of cult groups, this list gives a general listing of groups based upon their

• Minority groups -- Mainstream religious groups and anti-cult activists often classify these groups as cults; however, they are generally accepted within their area and are not seen as especially controversial (even if their behavior differs from the mainstream). (Christian Science, Mormons, Amish)
• Controversial groups -- These groups have come into conflict with mainstream religious organizations and/or restrictive governments, and are sometimes viewed with suspicion; but in general they are tolerated by society and left to their own actions. (Jehovah's Witnesses, Falun Gong, Herbalife (?))
• Alleged cults -- Governments seen as promoting religious tolerance (by law or otherwise) have taken action specifically against these groups. Prominent members of these groups have been involved in felony criminal actions; mainstream media reports have investigated their inner workings and publicized their findings in a manner seen as highly negative by the groups in question. (LaRouche, Scientology)
• Destructive cults -- The actions of these groups have been shown to be responsible for the deaths of a large number of the members of these groups, or to outsiders. (Al-Queda, Solar Temple, People's Temple)

In order to maintain a neutral point of view towards controversial groups, this list presents a listing of groups labelled as cults by various non-related, reasonably unbiased sources. These sources include:

• Well-established, widely-referenced and quoted media sources (examples include The New York Times)
• Other sources known for neutrality, such as Encyclopedia Britannica

Looking good. A valiant effort to make some sense of this article. Thanks. --Zappaz 02:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anome, thanks, it is certainly an improvement, so I support your proposal, but there are two aspects that deserve concern with your approach,

1. small, relatively unknown groups will not be listed here because there will be no mainstream media reporting on them. I regret this because they may be very harmful but I guess there is nothing to do about it because it is due to the nature of Wikipedia that demands verifiability and Wikipedia is not an anti cult website. Andries 09:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Some groups are relatively uncontroversial in a certian country but controversial elsewhere e.g. Christian Science and Falun Gong. Christian Science is relatively uncontroversial in the USA except in a http://www.Salon.com article "The respectable cult" but it is listed as a cult/("sect" in French) by the French government due to its discouragement of treatment by modern medicine of its adherents. Andries 09:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. I think it would be good to list for every entry a list of critical publications from scholarly sources or from the mainstream press with detailed criticisms (not just the scare mongering "we think it is a cult"). Andries 14:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are right Andries in stating that WP is not an anti-cult project, and thank God for that... As much harm as some cults have done to people, there are anti-cult groups that have done as much harm to society as a whole in their intemperance and intolerance toward emerging religions. As for the France reference, I would encourage you to read the points made in the Talk:Cult page by David M., and others in which the French position and the inner workings of their anti-cult commission in which Christian Science (amongst many many others) have been labeled as "sects" is discussed. As for your last point, I would disagree as for the need of such references as these are already included in the main articles of each one of the "purported cults" in the list. Brevity and conciseness is always best. --Zappaz 16:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I guess you are right that the list should be brief. Apart from that I want to warn against the inacccuarate, scare-mongering, sensationalist media articles by journalists who want to sell their newspaper or magazine. I propose some skepticism when using media articles as proof that some groups deserve to be labeled controversial, alleged cult. Andries 18:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, Why are Amway and Herbalife in different categories? By the definitions, I don't understand what would seperate them. Am I missing something? Also, I'm not sure why Jehovah's Witnesses are under "controversial". True, they had several struggles with the US Federal governent, but so did the LDS Church, through the 1880s. So does Christian Science—as Anries pointed out—in France. I believe all of these probably ought to be under the same heading. Cool Hand Luke 05:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't pretend to be an expert on all of these groups, and I'm not going to prevent anyone else from re-re-formatting this article to make it more NPOV. What I'd like to ask folks to focus on primarily is this: When updating the information about the groups listed here (and that includes moving them around or re-writing their entries), please add some useful references to support the NPOV status of their listings...references that at least attempt to be third-party and reasonably non-biased. (I.E. press releases and court affidavits are not NPOV, while court judgements are.) --Modemac 10:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This approach has promise. Please continue with it. Tom - Talk 16:59, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

(A month later) I continue to like the progress of this article. But there continues to be a problem with attribution. The introduction states the commendable and lofty ideal of listing groups that have been called cults by reasonably unbiased and reputable sources. But the first group listed, the LDS church (my church), is listed without attribution. I realize that the first place position is nice. But we still need to stick with the ideals of the intro. Is there a source for calling LDS Church a cult or need we go back to the suggestion of splitting this article into anti-cult and counter cult? Also, should we be listing the Colorado City polygamists, the FLDS Church? They are generally recognized as a dangerous group (ask the town of Eldorado Texas). Tom H. 20:32, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

The LDS church is at the top because it is currently the only group listed under "Minority Groups." As the categorization notes, minority groups in this article are "Mainstream religious groups and anti-cult activists often classify these groups as cults; however, they are generally accepted within their area and are not seen as especially controversial (even if their behavior differs from the mainstream)." My initial choice for "minority groups" included the LDS, Christian Science, and the Amish; however, both Christian Science and Amish have been edited and/or removed from the list. I should re-iterate that I re-organized the article in an attempt to bring it closer to NPOV, but this does not mean I am claiming to be an expert on alleged cults, religious groups, or what have you. What I consider to be a "cult" versus a "minority group" is of course my own opinion, and I'm hoping that other contributors to this article can provide their own insight and references as to the groups included on this list. --Modemac 12:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. So what should we do to reconcile the intro statement? Remove it? I don't dislike this article, but it is truly hard to know how it should look. Tom H. 19:47, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Here's an idea: We could organize this article similar to what Modemac has done, but the categories could be more specifically categories of "name callers" or "labellers". That is to say, they could be attribution categories. For example:

1. Groups that have been called cults by such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times
2. Groups that have been called cults by major secular magazines such as Time, Newsweek, USA Today, Reader's Digest
3. Groups that have been called cults by major religious or partisan periodicals.
4. Groups that have been officially called cults by multiple other major groups.
5. Groups that have been called cults by prominent or often invited indiviudals.

Tom H. 19:56, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Unification Church

The Unification Church (known as the "Moonies," a term primiarly used today by critics) is known for the worship bestowed upon its founder and leader, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, whom followers of the organization believe is the Messiah. Moon is best known for performing large “mass marriages” involving hundreds and even thousands of couples at a time, though the veracity of these mass marriages is questioned and opposed by other religious spokespersons. Moon was convicted in the United States in the 1980s on charges of tax fraud; his organization is also known to be affiliated with production of munitions in Korea and acquisitions of large amounts of real estate in South America. The organization owns and operates the conservative Washington Times newspaper and the UPI news network.

---

I cut the entire Unification Church section (shown in its entirety above).

1. The "reasons it's a cult" do not correspond with the Unification Church article.
2. It's not "known as the Moonies" but called Moonies primarily by detractors
3. "veracity of these mass marriages is questioned and opposed by other religious spokespersons." -- needs clarification. Are they saying these religious ceremonies do not take the place of civil ceremonies? If so, that is also the church position. Members have to get "married" in accordance with the laws of their country: Rev. Moon is not licensed in any jurisdiction to sign marriage certificates (Rev. Galban of the Bronx Unification Church, however, is licensed by the state of New York to sign marriage certificates).
4. Haven't heard elsewhere that "religious spokesmen" oppose the mass marriages, but maybe I'm a little deaf. Please provide a reference and put this part back.
5. Moon was convicted in the United States in the 1980s on charges of tax fraud. True, but what does that have to do with the church being called a "cult" by anyone? Moreover, there was a huge outpouring of support from the religious community branding the conviction as politically motivated. But the article might say that opponents (who already consider Moon a fraud for other reasons) point to the tax conviction as "further proof" that he's a fraud.
6. known to be affiliated with production of munitions in Korea - not true. This is a rumor started by Donald Fraser's congressional committee, and leaked to the press. But his final committee report CONCEDED that they had NO PROOF of this. So don't say known to be affiliated. You can say that some opponents CLAIM this, though, if you identify them.
7. The organization owns and operates the conservative Washington Times newspaper and the UPI news network. True, but that is hardly proof that they're a "cult". Disproof, possibly.

I'm not saying the Unification Church should be off this list. I'm just saying that the article should identify specific spokesmen or organizations who call it a cult. And that the articl. should explain SOME of the reasons these advocates give. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I'm in favor of corrections, removing the tax fraud, The Washington Times, and fictitious comments, and citing some countercultists or others that believe it's a cult. It should also be reclassified to "controversial"—they don't seem to fit "alleged cults" criteria as well. Incidentally, where did Christian Science go? Cool Hand Luke 20:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I think this is a fine idea, but I have a problem with the delete-then-discuss-rebuilding methodology. I'm happy to believe this text is all wrong, but that actually doesn't help my problem: Bulk deletion into whitespace for an indeterminate period is not SOP for incorrect text blocks, and it looks worse because you were the one who did the deletion. It doesn't look like an expert's redo, it looks instead like a supporter's POV burial. But for you being a longstanding guy around here and the talk page explanation, I would have reverted the delete already as a matter of course and standard policy. I would urge you to immediately either restore the current text or put up a substantial replacement framework. If you don't have time to produce a framework right now, restore the text and you gain the luxury of time to prove out and rewrite, or to pop in such a framework in the future at your convenience. A little eventualism is helpful here—this text will certainly get fixed sooner or later, so let's not by acting hastily create the appearance of impropriety. --Gary D 20:23, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Luke and Gary, I'm listening to both of you. See article text. And catch you all Monday! --user:Ed Poor (talk) 21:40, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Also, let's not forget Modemac's version, which needs merging (see this diff).

I've removed the section which says "friend of the court briefs from organizations representing the majority of the American people" - unless someone can provide credible evidence that there are groups "representing the majority of the American people" that did so. "The majority of the American people" is a very broad claim that needs to be substantiated, IMO. --FCYTravis 23:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

SSB

Text reads: Many ex-members like e.g Glen Meloy consider the Sathya Sai Organisation that was founded by Sathya Sai Baba a cult. Is it really "many"? --Zappaz 19:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good question. I have to admit that I can not prove it so I will tone it down though there is quite a lot of evidence for this assertion e.g. a petition of more than 800 people, who requested investigation of the sexual abuse and murder cases. Andries 22:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sahaya Yoga (dup entry)

There are two entries for Sahaya Yoga:

• List_of_purported_cults#Sahaja_Yoga

and

• List_of_purported_cults#Sahaja_Yoga_2

Can anyone knowledgeable in this subject attempt to merge these two? --Zappaz 20:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rastafari

I think this group should definitely be in here, but not as a controversial group. Clearly no mind or group control stuff, the negative being more along the lines of being perceived as a load of lazy drug addicts.--Squiquifox 23:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)