| Revision as of 18:09, 15 October 2004 editEd Poor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,216 edits thanks, Andries← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:57, 28 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,694 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Cult/Archive 7) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{controversial}} | {{controversial}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes| | |||
| ] | |||
| {{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid|attention=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Horror|importance=Mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid|attention=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Religion|importance=High|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top|attention=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Scientology|importance=Low}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |counter = 7 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Cult/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| __FORCETOC__ | |||
| == Unmerging ] == | |||
| ==Resolution to modify the article== | |||
| Per above, the list of political cults is a drag on this article and for the quality of this one to be improved it should be removed. However the concept of "political cult" is probably notable and the merge was 11 years ago. Any consensus to split it back out again? ] (]) 23:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The problem that is apparent now is that article gives an impression that "cult" is a scientific term and even gives criterias of cults. To restore balance, it is important to 1) substitute the word "cult" with "new religiuos movements" (or "controversial new religious movements") and 2) to state clearly that since usage of the word "cult" itself is not accepted by the majority of scholars, "cult checklists" remain disputable at best, it is a theory not supported by everyone and hence 3) uncritically dedicating half of the article to the dubious viewpoints of anti-cult activists is excessive. | |||
| : {{Reply|PARAKANYAA}} Well, you already cut it out of the article ''without any discussion'', so I suggest you either put it back in and discuss it, or make an article out of the content you removed. (] & ]) <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 00:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I'm willing to do that provided there is sufficient consensus to undo the merge. Do you think there's enough for a whole article on the concept of "political cults"? I think probably. ] (]) 00:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I put the content and sources in ], so you can read it there, or copy it, or rename/move it. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 00:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: ...meaning you could create a standalone article. I don't object to splitting it out of ]. And come to think of it, it would be better for you to use the content by copying it and noting the copy being from ], to keep track of the edit history per wiki guidelines. I just slapped it into that sandbox; and I'll delete it afterwards. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 00:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am irritated but honestly I couldn't find many sources on the topic of "political cults" specifically, other than a single Turkish journal article and the On the Edge book. However the term is used so often it's drowned in a sea of mentions. I feel there should be... something. Can you find anything? ] (]) 01:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I'll look. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 01:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC) {{Pb}}I'll add some potential sources here as I find them.{{r|Silayeva|spiceislander|Altemeyer|Marquez}} <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 01:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I too think all of this trivial discussion of the cults themselves isn't helpful here. I'd just list and link. ] (]) 13:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Reflist-talk|refs= | |||
| Restoring balance is difficult as article is quite lenghty already and enough efforts were already invested in it, so I assume some will be disappointed with my edits. But when I have sufficient time, I will rewrite it completely. "cult checklists" and similar stuff I will move to "anti-cult movement". Hope this solution will be accepted by others. | |||
| <ref name="Altemeyer">{{Cite book |title=The Authoritarians |first=Bob |last=Altemeyer |author-link=Bob Altemeyer |year=2006 |url=https://theauthoritarians.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/TheAuthoritarians.pdf}}</ref> | |||
| :I agree with the above proposal.--] 22:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| <ref name="Marquez">{{Cite journal |title=Two Models of Political Leader Cults: Propaganda and Ritual |date=2018 |first=Xavier |last=Márquez |journal=Politics, Religion & Ideology |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=265-284 |doi=10.1080/21567689.2018.1510392}}</ref> | |||
| :Sounds good to me. It is about time this is done. These checklists are an invention based on unscientific discourse. You have my support. --] 00:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| <ref name="Silayeva">{{Cite journal |title=Political Cults as a New Phenomenon of Religious Studies |first=Zoya Vladimirovna |last=Silayeva |url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a0ff/1bcacc10969b7f930363e122686c4020de4e.pdf |doi=10.7596/taksad.v6i4.1143 |journal=Journal of History Culture and Art Research |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=523-530}}</ref> | |||
| Please continue to vote. 2 votes so far, not enough. | |||
| <ref name="spiceislander">{{Cite web |title=Political Cult vs. Political Party: Understanding the Differences |date=July 9, 2023 |url=https://spiceislander.com/political-cult-vs-political-party-understanding-the-differences/ |website=spiceislander.com}}</ref> | |||
| :: I think that these checklists should be attributed to the anti-cult movement. ] 18:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Sure, you may move them yourself to the movement's article. ] | |||
| }} | |||
| ==CESNUR== | |||
| David, I reverted your remark that CESNUR was funded by Scientology. I could not find any references for it and I strongly believe it to be incorrect. ] 20:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == National values == | |||
| :To start you off, is a Usenet post by Anton Hein (Apologetics Index) on the murkiness of the funding arrangements of CESNUR and of the academic study of NRMs in general. You are correct, in that it's not ''just'' Scientology paying them. But CESNUR are essentially paid public relations for the groups they write about. Compare ] and the tobacco industry. A reference supported by a study from CESNUR cannot reasonably be considered more than a press release with foot notes - ] 00:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| List five causes of cultism ] (]) 11:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::David, we discussed this in another article's talk page (forgot which one) and you agreed with me that it was a mistake on your part to attribute CESNUR to Scientology. --] 00:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==If this is a controversial term, then label it as such== | |||
| == Why the revert, Andries? == | |||
| The lead is not up to WP:MOS and WP:LEAD standards. English is being tortured (by whom?) and some vague notion of laity is being evoked (by us). If we need to make sure it's clear that there is an idealogical war being waged over this term, let's say it is "controversial" or "contested" or "pejorative" and then we owe the general reader a clear explanation of its common sense everyday meaning. "perceived to be" is vague and does no one any good. "lay" is meaningless as there relevant epistemic community is not specified and probably can't be specified without taking a side. Here is my proposed lead. We start with the common usage and then tack on caveats and modifiers further on in the article: | |||
| {{quote|Cult is a pejorative term for a religious or idealogical group typically led by a charismatic leader who tightly controls the members.}} | |||
| Cheers.] (]) 17:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I agree with you that it could be written better. The problem with this is that this term has a tortured and inconsistent definition and half the sources about it nowadays are about people fighting about the definition - controversial is perhaps understating it. About the article now: a large majority of this article is citing antiquated works on the definition of cult from religious studies/sociology, which is the discipline that studies what the general person thinks of when they hear cult, but later abandoned the term, so a lot of this article functions as an antiquated snapshot of NRMs. | |||
| If you are reverting a substantial edit, you need to substantiate it here. The contributions by anon were pretty good. These deserve to be looked at and find a way o incorporate them into the text rather than performing and arbitrary and blanket revert. Thus, I am putting these back. --] 01:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :I tried to cut out the really old sources (of which there is still too much) and extremely bad sources a few months ago, but I had to stop making progress further because I cannot figure out what this article ''should'' should be about. Is it about the ''term'' cult (would probably be easier to write) or are we going to write about it acting as if it's a concept that has any agreed upon aspects besides a label, which is a very disputed idea. In any case we need to stop using sources that are very clearly just about NRMs without reference to the broader concept (but then what do we use? And then the sources that tend to use the word cult dispute the NRM label...). I keep trying to look at the more recent sources and come to the conclusion that everyone is talking about different things which is hard to write an encyclopedia article from. And that definition, which is currently in the article, seems not great. ] (]) 17:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Zappaz, the edits contained serious mistakes. E.g. the anon=] just speculated about what Barrett wrote. Barrett did not write that using the word cult is unscientific. I advised ExitControl to start editing the draft at ] I do agree that all the edits should be reviewed one by one but takes a lot of time and I did not have that time. I will do my best. ] 22:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I feel your pain. Like "]" there is a ] with cult. I'm reminded of the quip that the difference between a dialect and a language is an army. I'm willing to try to puzzle this one out if you want help. In the meantime, I just searched the term and an older wikipedia definition came up. "Cult is a term for a group with deviant beliefs and practices, often led by a charismatic leader. The term is controversial and has different meanings in popular culture and academia. " This seems good to me. ] (]) 18:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah certainly something needs to be done here, and the more voices here the better. I like that older definition more than what we have now, and wouldn't mind reinstating it - though in academia there are many divergent senses of the term, so maybe just splitting that between the two is misleading. I think it would help if we had a clearer guide on what we are trying to make this page be about. ] (]) 18:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Lead needs rewriting == | |||
| :I have to admit that the anon=] made some good edits but one of the problems is that he suggests that only the anti-cult movement uses the word cult, which is untrue. The public and the media use the word too. More than the somewhat unusual term NRM.] 23:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| The lead sentence was recently removed, leaving the article to go straight into a defense. No, you need to describe "What is it?" before you dive into defending contentious contemporary usage. The lead is full of pompous-sounding scholarly-type gobbledygook. The lead should ''introduce'' the topic and be a ''summary'' of the article. I see no summary in this current lead. Use ] for guidance. Think "How would you describe 'cult' to a child?" Most people will ''only'' read the lead. It had better explain "What is a cult?" to the ''average'' reader. This is an encyclopedia, not a scholar's battleground. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 18:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, the public, the media and even some European goverments use the word "cult" in that sense - "dangerous new religious movement". While "cult" in this sense is an offensive label, NRM is a scientific term. Therefore, it is inappropriate to continue use this word again and again as if it is a recognized scientific term. That is irrespectively of what Barrett wrote. Besides, listing fringe hypothesis ("checklists") is anti-cult POV and the corresponding passages must be moved to "anti-cult movement", as these are theories associated with that movements first and not academic community (only a small part of academics hold this extreme views). We need to say that this is how the media and public use that word, everything else is excessive --] | |||
| :My issue with that is the definition of cult I would use to explain to a child is "harmful group of weirdos" which may be difficult to find sourcing support for. We don't get to decide what something is or isn't. I do agree that the sentence as before was a very... bad definition, relative to pretty much anything, but I don't know what we should replace it with. Similar problem to ] I suppose where defining it tends to get lost in the academic weeds (see the year of arguing on the talk page) ] (]) 18:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, at least it should be made clear in the article that the checklists are from anti-cult activists. ] 17:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it would be dangerous for Misplaced Pages to be so reductive as to call a cult a "harmful group of weirdos". ] (]) 18:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] Then what ''is'' it? Because sure, reductive or whatever, I would argue such a definition is far closer to the layman perception (as Grorp appealed to) than arcane academic terminology, which there is almost no agreement on. As such I was not suggesting we use it in the article but trying to illustrate my issue with that argument. ] (]) 18:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm afraid I'm going to argue in favor of the "arcane academic terminology." | |||
| ::::While we should do everything possible to communicate academic ideas clearly and concisely we should not be reductivist and over-simplify concepts just because laymen might expect something simpler. | |||
| ::::As things stand I think the lede is likely to narrow about what a cult may be - however I will say that the recent revision was a net improvement to copy. ] (]) 19:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] And if there are fierce disagreements on the academic front? ] (]) 19:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Then we communicate that. ] (]) 19:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't think it's possible to, when some of the sources reject the term and view it is a pejorative for a separate topic, some of the sources reject the concept of that separate topic and view it as a euphemism for this one, and some act as if they are separate things. ] (]) 19:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Then we should be describing "cult" as a discursive field in which concepts regarding religion, history and marginality are interrelated in various ways. Which is, unfortunately, getting into that "arcane academic terminology" but may be more accurate than referring to cults as centralized new religious movements with charismatic leadership. ] (]) 19:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tqq|Similar problem to ] I suppose where defining it tends to get lost in the academic weeds (see the year of arguing on the talk page)}} (I was involved in those arguments). I think the lead of Cargo cult has actually ended up in a reasonable place. If you go take a look, you'll see that the first paragraph actually defines and summarizes the term, then the second paragraph goes into controversy and colloquial usage. Could something like that be workable here? I do recognize that "cult" is a much broader term, and "cargo cult" is far more specific though. ] (]) 20:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ideally something like that would be workable, but as you said cult is much broader and with cargo cult there was not a dispute between it applying to religions in Melanesia, which is at least something tying the topic together. This, not so much ] (]) 21:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :What you added is definitely better, but it still raises a lot of questions, in that it is not supported in the body (], almost everything in the lead should be in the body) and I question how agreed upon this is as a definition. I don't actually think "high control" is the most agreed upon aspect by the public, much less anyone else. Mostly perceived deviance or harmfulness. ] (]) 18:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: I think "blindly following" is closer than "high control" (though high control should be in the article somewhere). Also, the article was radically altered in late September by you. I'm not even going to look if my version (of concept) used to be in the body. The alterations were so expansive that I quit checking the diffs. Today's edit caught my attention because it removed the first sentence which was a "what is". <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 20:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fair enough. About my changes: All my edits were in an attempt to address the update tag, mostly reducing usage of old sources and standardizing the citation formatting. This involved trimming some things that were very specific details compared to what this is, a higher level article. I also trimmed some blatantly unreliable stuff like a citation to a random Scribd document by a random guy and stuff just repeating the Falun Gong’s ludicrous claims. I don’t recall adding much except adding bits from a 2024 book to introduce more recent elements. After that point the structure of the article became more aggravating the more I thought about it and I felt I could not improve it further without making structural changes. ] (]) 20:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::And yeah we should surely have ''something'' onwiki explaining the high control group stuff, because that is a pretty widely discussed concept. I’m surprised we don’t. ] (]) 20:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I've said above, we should use the everyday commonsense meaning first. We should not say anything about "lay" and ideally we would not even say "a term for" ].] (]) 20:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Then there’s an issue, and a lack of consensus as Simon above just proposed the exact opposite. Because there is no agreement on what this topic is, so you have to discuss it in the sense of varying terms, definitions and academic and popular history. See Cargo cult discussion as mentioned. A substantial portion of discussion of it a is ''as a label'', so that is unavoidable. ] (]) 21:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are essentially two meanings, one the modern popular "bunch of wierdos" (pretty much restricted to English, I think), and the other the far older, more technical (but by no means "arcane") term for religious devotion. ], at the top, seems to think he knows what "cult" means, and is impatient when this article veers away from this meaning, but it MUST do this. ] is not the best example for the older meaning. Our lead needs to explain why all ]s are centred on a ], and most surviving ]s were built to support the ]. Also why the very secular councils of French seaside towns typically provide a noticeboard for ''Le culte'' (with details of religious services of all types, also in newspapers, websites etc). In general terms, this older meaning is ''not at all controversial'', nor is it outdated, and this discussion is deep in a rabbit hole because it has pursued one example that is controversial. ] (]) 22:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] We already have a separate article for the worship sense which means this is about the “bunch of weirdos” definition. ] (]) 22:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What is that other article, and where does this article say that? In that case the title should certainly be disambiguated. But in any case, the different meanings of the word should be explained (as they are in the definitions section). ] (]) 22:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] It is in the first paragraph of the definitions section, ]). I am against explaining it in the lead as it will confuse the scope further. ] (]) 22:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::In a rather Easter Egg link! I think it should be in the lead, not least because important popular meanings such as ], ] etc, really come off the devotional meaning rather than the wierdos one. Not confusing people doesn't seem to be going too well! ] (]) 22:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yeah the link should be changed to be a bit less Easter-egg. And putting it that way, I can understand the rationale behind mentioning it, though I believe it should be kept to a limited degree. We would mention it to make clear it’s distinct - but that is moot as we have no clear definition here. ] (]) 22:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What can I do to get you to stop using "perceived to be"? It's an ungainly, vague, WP:WEASEL phrase. It is a passive construction. It is bad form. If what you are trying to convey is that "cult" will always be a controversial label that is hard to define, than that should be said clearly at one point in the article, but not repeated every time. We can't use wikivoice to say "there is no such thing as a cult, only a perception of a cult" That would fail NPOV. | |||
| :::::::::There was a consensus for the following first sentences. Let's go back to this: | |||
| :::::::::'''Cult is a term for a group with deviant beliefs and practices, often led by a charismatic leader. The term is controversial and has different meanings in popular culture and academia. ''' ] (]) 23:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::@] The sources are just as weasley! Many, though not all, speak in terms of perception, of what outside sources deem as such, in their definitions. Since we are accurately conveying what they say it is not a weasel word. This is an article on a label as much as it is on a thing; that would only fail NPOV if that is not what the sources say, and plenty of them do deny that is a cult is a thing yes. That is the whole problem! And that definition has been criticized by others in this thread and does not match up with the sources. But again... little agreement. ] (]) 23:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Let's go back to the definition that had consensus before and has none of the discussed problems. | |||
| :::::::::::'''Cult is a term for a group with deviant beliefs and practices, often led by a charismatic leader. The term is controversial and has different meanings in popular culture and academia. ''' ] (]) 00:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I understand cutting the perceived by bit but I don't think this is an ideal solution because it misses a lot of the aspects of the term. Not great for a lead sentence. ] (]) 00:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I'm pretty happy with your latest version. Thanks for accommodating my concerns! ] (]) 16:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Reorg suggestion === | |||
| :::ExitControl, these checklists are not fringe. They are very popular. ] 17:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| {{reply|PARAKANYAA}} I have a suggestion for a simple reorganization that might solve this issue. Since the various factions are still debating the term (right here), perhaps this article should be more of a super-disambiguation article (]), and less about the weirdo def (which it probably was originally, by default). Start off with a ''very brief'' list of types of usage of "cult" (common conceptions, new religion, old religious, high control, destructive, doomsday, political, imperial, etc.), then use the rest of the article as-is (definition, scholarly, types, anti-cult, govs). | |||
| ::::Sure, they are popular. That is because of widespread usage and power of internet. If we see the word in newspapers frequently and tens of dedicated anti-cult websites popup in Google, that does not mean the term is scientific and a majority of religious scholars agree on its meaning and usage. As to "cult-like behaviour" and other things, a majority of scholars do not hold these views. I am not saying we shouldn't use the word, but usage must be put in context. | |||
| For example, a new lead might go something like this: "Cult is a term used in many ways. For example, meaning a destructive group, or a high-control group, or worship of a religious icon, or...blah blah blah. The use of cult in a derogatory sense is objected to by the anti-cult movement. Scholars disagree about something something. Some governments consider blah blah." | |||
| :::ExitControl, please understand that the main why reason use the term NRM instead of cult, is not that the word cult in itself is unscholarly or unscientific, but to avoid the negative connotations of the word cult. And by the way, the scholarly series of books ''Nieuwe religieuze bewegingen in Nederland'' by the ] has published one book (nr. 19) with the title ''Sekten'' (cults in English). I really have to think about your proposal. ] 17:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| The types section would give broader summaries than the lead (as it already does), but you should include EACH of the different types of cults. Some are missing or have been folded into other sections; maybe they should be distinctly listed. Of course the "types" would include high-control or weird new religion or common misconception, and they each become one of the types, not a remnant-default of the article. | |||
| ::::Andries, I wish I could argue with you better, but for the lack of time let me add the following quote, which might give you an idea of what is accepted mainstream science and what are fringe theories: | |||
| With this endless debate about how to present the lead, maybe it would calm the contention by making this article about ''all'' cults, not by default about the common man's idea of cult = weirdo group, and not one single type as the primary or default. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 01:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The American Psychological Association (APA) in 1984 allowed Margaret Singer, the main proponent of anti-cult mind control theories, to create a working group called Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC). | |||
| : As I was drafting the above, you were making changes to the article. They're looking good, and seems like we're onto a similar idea. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 01:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This would be making it more about the term or word, if I understand you correctly. The current state of this article is so unsatisfactory I fail to see how it could be worse as long as we're not doing... this. At some point when an article subject is as confused as this one is, it as a result becomes more about the ''term'', so maybe doing something like what you suggest would be okay. ] (]) 03:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In 1987, the final report of the DIMPAC committee was submitted to the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology of the APA. On May 11, 1987, the Board rejected the report and concluded that its kind of mind control theories, used in order to distinguish "cults" from religions, are not part of accepted psychological science (American Psychological Association 1987). Although the APA memorandum only dismissed the theories of brainwashing and mind control as presented in the DIMPAC report -- without prejudice to theories of influence and control other than those advocated by the DIMPAC committee - the results of the APA document were devastating for the anti-cult movement. | |||
| :: Well, all the argumentation is about "''which'' definition of 'cult' is the predominant/primary/most-important one". If you look at disambiguation pages, list-articles, and ], you'll see a commonality. They are about covering multifaceted topics under the same, or similar, titles. If we demote the common definition of 'cult' to be just one of many types of cults, then perhaps the argumentation will fall away. And then people can focus more on improving the content and sources of their preferred type of cult topic. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 04:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In fact, the DIMPAC theories rejected by APA largely corresponded to the anti-cult position as a whole. Starting from the Fishman case (1990), where a defendant accused of commercial fraud raised as a defense that he was not fully responsible since he was under the mind control of Scientology, American courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that these were not part of accepted mainline science (Anthony & Robbins 1992: 5-29). Margaret Singer, and her associate Richard Ofshe filed suits against the APA and the American Sociological Association (who had supported APA's 1987 statement) but they lost in 1993 and 1994. | |||
| ::::As you see from the passage, neither the theories you rely on are mainline science, nor they are accepted by professional association (APA). The word cult is used by scholars (whilea part of them prefer replacing it with NRM term), but cult checklists, mind control et cetera are fringe theories, rebutted by mainstream scholars. Therefore I suggest that we not give an impression in the article that these is mainstream science and revise the text accordingly. And it all should be in anti-cult movement, I believe. | |||
| :Thank you for the comprehensive response. These checklists are an invention of anti-cultists in order to create a fallacious taxonomy. Thank god that common sense has prevailed and that theories of people like Singer have been thoroughly dismissed. --] 00:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, yes, but SOME of the NRMs have abused their recruits. At times, even my beloved and Unfication Church has made errors -- all from NOT following Rev. Moon, to be sure! But I won't stand for a whitewash anyway. --] 01:00, 26 Sep 2004 | |||
| (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure, facts are facts and if some NRM members committed crims, this surely contributed to their negative image and we may say that. Generalizations are inappropriate, however, wouldn't you agree? This is not am "op-ed" piece, we need to make a balanced and distilled article. | |||
| ==To do: Can somebody include the definition by Roy Wallis?== | |||
| Thanks in advance ] 11:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Removal of further offensive labels== | |||
| Removed the following from the 'see also' links: Doomsday cult, Cult homicide, Cult suicide, True-believer syndrome, Self-deception. Reasons: while the acceptability of usage of the word "cult" itself in the sense of a "dangerous new religion" is currently debated here, addition of further offensive labels to encourage creation of separate articles is contrary to NPOV policy. Language in use in ] should be mentioned in separate article. | |||
| Also removed: Cognitive dissonance, Hate group, Religious conversion to new religious movements, Shepherding, Shunning. -- ] | |||
| ::I strongly disagree with those removals. These are important to get a wider perspective. I have my doubts about the checklist but removing these wikilinks is very wrong, I think. Besides some of these terms, like true believer syndrome and self-deception do not come from the anti-cult movement but from skeptics. I will revert. ] | |||
| :::Will revert back (remove the links again). I do not see what "wider prespective" you want to get by adding links to quotes from Adolph Hitler and suggestions to create new articles like "cult suicide". That's as far as 2/3 of your links that I removed are concerned. As to skeptics, please feel free to move their independent anti-cult theories to "]", as anti-cult theories are better represented there than here, be they independent or not. Then provide a single link to it here. Posting such links in this article is contrary to NPOV, as you therefore suggest that there's a connection between Nazis and "cults", mental deseases and cults etc. | |||
| ::::The big lie is central to understanding some cults, I believe. Read e.g. by the philosopher and sociologist and ex-cult member ]. ] 18:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Andries, I is not that I say you have wrong opinions, but this is related to a debate regarding cults, their dangers and so forth. That's why it should be put elsewhere, namely in "anti-cult movement". Or you could create some specific article where dangers of cults and all cult-related theories are touched (this makes sense, as technically not all anti-cult scholars are members of anti-cult movements). | |||
| ::::ExitControl, e.g. the term cognitive dissonance is generally accepted in psychology. To attribute that to the anti-cult movement and hence remove it is very ignorant. ] 18:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Andries, the term is of course accepted is psychology. It is contrary to NPOV to post it here, however (similarly to "psychosis" or "schizophrenia"). It is not used by mainstream psychologists in relation to NRM followers, but is is used quite frequently by anti-cult activists, so you may put it there. | |||
| :That is a good call, ExitControl. Thanks. --] 18:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::ExitControl, | |||
| :::::::1. it is only a see also list | |||
| :::::::2. I disagree that it is not used by mainstream scholars with regards to NRMs. I mean this is basic and non-pejorative. Cognitive dissonance is not an illness like pscyhosis or schizophrenia but a very common phenomenon. Please read and do some research!! | |||
| ::::::] 18:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Let me explain the reasons for removal in detail, so it not appear as if I am censoring you out of ignorance. | |||
| :::::::1. it is contrary to NPOV to associate "cults" with Hitler and so forth, even by way of 'see also' links. | |||
| :::::::2. The matter is not whether cognitive dissonance is a phenomena recognized by psychologists and whether it was mentioned by scholars of new religions. The matter is whether it is appropriate to provide this link here and it's not. | |||
| :::::::P.S. This Festinger's theory mentioned by some, i.e. the "cultists" refuse to believe facts about cults due to this "cognitive dissonance". You could put the link to ] article and ] as well, as anti-cult activists made numerous references to Festinger in their argumentation. But no need to put it here. | |||
| :::::::External links with comments like "What you should know about cult defenders" also cannot be considered neutral (to put it mildly). Bias is apparent, but I will not argue about that until I rewrite the article and invite ctiticism of the draft. | |||
| ::::::I continue to disagree with you ExitControl, you are only making it more difficult for the reader if you remove direct wikilinks pertinent to cults, like cognitive dissonance. And when I read a book with interviews of Nazis, it felt as if I could have been saying what the Nazi said. The big lie is about propaganda. It is the same phenomonon in cults. ] 19:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't dispute that this might be relevant, but not here. I suggest "anti-cult movement" and "new religious movements". You could add these theories there, together with Hitler if you think they are relevant. | |||
| Of course this stuff is related, relevant and on-topic. Don't be ridiculous - ] 21:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, folks. Several users have asked me to come here and vote. I rarely participate in votes, and then only for the best of reasons, but I will offer these observations. | |||
| I added the two definitions and the two "checklists" to the article some time ago, though I did not use the word "checklist," which is believe may be misleading. Both checklists come from scholarly sources, references for which are included. I chose these two particular sources because they are widely quoted in professional and scholarly literature in both psychiatric and sociological disciplines. Indeed, in my survey of the research they appeared to be the most widely quoted of any of the several definitions and lists of characteristics in print. As such, I consider them to be the best possible factual articulation of the views of sociological and psychiatric scholars regarding the subject at hand; they are NPOV and they should stay. | |||
| Some groups that I would characterize as "cult apologists" seek to change the vocabulary and define away cults by instead using only the term "new religious movement" (or other substantially similar terms, "emerging religious movement" and so forth). I believe that we should document these views and present them in the article. However, these are not widely held views, and though we should describe them we need not adopt the terminology ourselves. | |||
| : Firstly, the word cult exists for centuries in English vocabulary and only following the creation of anti-cult movement this word began to be used to describe a dangerous small religious group. So it is incorrect that "cult apologists" are seeking to "change the vocabulary", as you say. Besides, saying that the views of "cult apologists" are not widely help is nonsense. | |||
| The trouble with the NRM label is that not all cults (as described by the two sources in the article) are religous in nature, and not all NRMs are cults (again using the cult definition in the article). While there is overlap, it only confuses the issue to eschew use of the word cult and try to talk around something like "abusive NRMs and non-religous NRM-like movements that share their characteristics." | |||
| As with other controversial topics, we would do well to proceed as follows: | |||
| # Choose vocabulary based on the most widespread usage. | |||
| # State facts. | |||
| # State the views of each of the dissenting groups, with references. | |||
| # Try to place each group in context, in terms of relative size or influence. | |||
| My two cents. There are abusive cults out there, and most of them don't make headlines by killing people. There are also lots of noncult NRMs out there. There are edge groups that walk the line and exhibit some abusive behaviors, or that have some subgroups that exhibit abusive behaviors. | |||
| :Again, what ExitControl says is to move all the pro-cult/anti-cult topic to other articles, and here just note the two meanings of the word - 1) hystorical and 2) recent, i.e. abusive new religion - ExitControl | |||
| ::ExitControl, I do not agree. Misplaced Pages is more than a dictionary. ] 16:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Be well and play nice. | |||
| ] 21:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :well, may be ExitControl is right that the "anti-cult checklists" are now too prominently featured in the article. They certainly have to be attributed more clearly to anti-cult activists. I also have a checklist by ] who is not an anti-cult activist here at home in a book. If one of the anti-cult checklist is moved to the anti-cult movement article and replaced by hers then that could help to balance the article . ] 10:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::These checklsist are an invention of anti-culrt activists. If you want them, post them on the ] page. Not here. And when you move them, provide references. --] 18:00, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::I also think that references related to anti-cult wars are better placed there - ExitControl | |||
| :::The references are listed. Annotate the references if you must, but you don't get to just shift the criticism to another page with no reference here - ] 20:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I suggest to 1) shift the criticism to another page but 2) provide reference to that page. - ExitControl | |||
| == Checklists - care needed == | |||
| Hadn't noticed the descussion before my edit. Added a *disclaimer* before the checklists. Hope it meets with general approval. | |||
| I disagree. The checklists must go. Either be deleted or moved to the ] page. If there is no concensus, let us bring it to request for comments, and take a vote.--] 00:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure what uc means by "scholarly" sources and "NPOV" info (I'm reading the talk page b4 the article, so maybe I'm going off half-cocked). | |||
| :My experience with cult checklists and appeals to scientific authority makes me suspicious about people who have '''already made up their mind'''. They want to promote the view that cults in general are bad (or that NRMs I think are benign are destructive). They trot out these checklists, and sure enough, everything on their list seems to apply to the groups they want to slam. | |||
| :There are two problems with this approach: (1) The checklists aren't scientific, i.e., the items often don't really apply to the NRMs any more than they do traditional "non-cult" religious groups (like Catholic nuns and monks). (2) Many or most of the items don't even apply to the NRMS -- the anti-cult crusaders merely '''assert''' that they do, while ignoring all evidence to the contrary. | |||
| :I hope that Misplaced Pages does not adopt the view that these 'cult checklists' and the conclusions that anti-cultists draw from them are '''objectively true'''. It would be better if Misplaced Pages took no official position on this controversial matter. --] 18:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ed, please be patient. I plan to replace one checklist with one by Eileen Barker. Some sociologists claim that Barker's list is based on empirical reserarch. ] 18:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I agree with Ed that we shouldn't present checklists as objectively true - nor should we present his views or anyone else's as such. But I see no problem with including such lists if they are properly attributed. It would be nice to put two or three similar such checklists in a table, each listed with a source. Splitting this stuff up into two articles (one about cults and the other about anti-cult groups) is not the solution.--]] | |||
| I think the only way to keep these "How to Tell if Johnny Is a Cultist"-type checklists--and make the article keep some semblance of NPOV--is to present them in some sort of historical or scientific context. Just saying that scholar X says that groups who do A, B, and C are cults doesn't mean anything other than that scholar X thinks groups shouldn't do A, B, and C. It just doesn't say anything about ''why'' the scholar uses that particular definition of a cult. Maybe the scholar has some scientific justification, or maybe the scholar is simply making a judgment-call as to which groups are "normal" and which aren't. To be NPOV, what you'd have to say is something like this: "Scholar X did a study in which she defined a cult as a group who did A, B, and C; under that definition, she found that cult members had a 15% higher rate of suicide." ] 00:02, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| CODGEN: These checklists are an invention on the anti-cult movement, and lack substantive scientific support. They need to go unless properly NPOVed as per your suggestions. --] 02:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry, but this is not how ] works. Whether you agree or disagree with the statements or whether you consider them scientific or pseudoscientific doesn't matter. What matters is that 1) credentialed experts in the field have created these lists, 2) they are relevant to the topic in question. Hence, they can be included with proper attribution, just as we include non-scientific statements by cult apologists.--]] | |||
| :I think that an opinionated definition needs ''more'' than just attribution to be NPOV. It also requires a context. Citations to somebody's opinionated ''definition'', are not like citations to historical or scientific fact or alleged-fact (and this includes pseudoscientific facts and alternate histories, which are treated the same as any other facts or alleged-facts). It doesn't matter that the definition is properly attributed, and whether the person cited has credentials--citing somebody's ''definition'' as a fact is ''not'' NPOV, unless you provide (or the audience understands) some context relating the definition to a set of facts or alleged-facts of science or history. | |||
| :For example, in the ] article, it's not enough to say something like "According to informal studies by Dr. X, an expert in political science, a person is an ''idiot'' if they (1) dislike George Bush, and (2) vote for Ralph Nader. See Journal of Punditry 6:44." This is probably relevant and definitely properly attributed, but certainly not NPOV, ''unless'' the article also somewhere mentions that Dr. X is a Democrat, and that he made the above statement while on the campaign trail for John Kerry. (That is, enough material for the audience to evaluate whether Dr. X's seemingly factual definition of an ''idiot'' is more fact-like or more definition-like).] 17:58, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ===Can somebody please enlighten me?=== | |||
| The checklist suggests that there can be nothing wrong with a groups if it does not fulfill the checklist. That is what I really believed. Well, my former group did not really did not seem to fulfill several cecklists but there is sooooo much wrong with it. ] 20:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| =="cult" checklists== | |||
| I just read each of the 3 'cult' checklists in the article. I think they should be moved to the ] or ] articles. They are guidelines being promoted by these groups to 'identify cults', not objective criteria developed by credentialed sociologists, psychologists, lawyers or other credentialed professionals. They have no scientific basis. | |||
| Nearly all of the items apply equally to mainstream religions, such as the Roman Catholic Church. For example, a hierarchy whose top leader is not accountable to any earthly authority. | |||
| Moreover, there is no explanation for ANY of the items which shows how this makes the "cult" spurious or dangerous. | |||
| In other words, it's all simply opinion. | |||
| For these checklists to gain Misplaced Pages endorsement as "scientific", there ought to be examples of specific 'cults' showing (a) how one of more of these checklist items '''clearly and unambiguously applies''' to them, and how such conditions either caused or predicted harm to members or outsiders. | |||
| In fact, no reputable scientific body has endorsed these checklists. Lifton's theories are no longer in vogue. I'm not sure where the second list came from, and the third list looks a lot like Steve Hassan's (he has no scientific credentials, just a degree in counseling). | |||
| The article should '''at least mention that these checklists are in dispute''' and should not state or even hint that they are "scientific" unless accompanied by a statement from SOME scientific body. | |||
| My guess is that someone just took a look at a bunch of unpopular new religious movements, noted a handful of their common features, and created a list of bullet items. Then, putting the cart before the horse, they promoted these common characteristics of '''unpopularity''' into '''indicators of evil'''. I'm not sure if ANY scientist would call this scientific. | |||
| It's like saying, here's how you can identify an "evil anti-war protest": | |||
| *Their members have long hair and strange clothing | |||
| *They wear "love beads" | |||
| *They often chant in public for long periods | |||
| I won't extend the bullet points, because I don't want to insult your intelligence: you get the idea. There is nothing sinister about hair or clothing style, necklaces, or chanting. Baseball fans chant! | |||
| I'd like to see the article say that: | |||
| *organized campaigns against new religious movements branded them as "cults" | |||
| *these campaigns claimed that large, well-known organizations (such as the ] and ] were harming (or likely to harm) their recruits or the general public | |||
| *these campaigns stirred up public support for involuntary "]" of recruits | |||
| *they justified these deprogrammings on the grounds that the recruits were victims of "]" | |||
| *The APA eventually determined that the theory of mind control had no scientific basis | |||
| *Widely publiciized claims that the larger, better known NRMs would commit mass suicide have yet to come true (for UC and HK in particular) | |||
| Sorry to ramble so much, but it's a confusing and upsetting subject. In sum, I think the article should talk about: | |||
| *how some people define the word '''''cult''''' (i.e., a religion which '''they''' regard as spurious) | |||
| *the distinction between groups which actually did become 'destructive' in a widely agreed sense, such as mass suicide (Jim Jones) or terrorism (Aum whatever). | |||
| *how fears of cult suicide led to an armed attack on a group which (arguably) caused their deaths -- when their leader could have been arrested on any of his daily jogs outside the compound (David Koresh) | |||
| *disputes between sociologists and anti-cult activists | |||
| As for the cult checklists, it would be interesting if anyone ever actually compared their bullet points with the actual (or supposed) characteristics of an NRMs or destructive cults. | |||
| I might be biased, although people who know me at Misplaced Pages generally trust me to be an honest and trustworthy reporter. And I have compared each of the checklist items to the ]. Only a couple of items (one each from the first 2 lists) apply to the UC. And these aren't particularly sinister, because they don't combine with other items (for instance): | |||
| *gradually introducing the teachings | |||
| This would be sinister, if the church had a large body of secret esoteric teachings. The UC's only 'secret' is the OPEN SECRET that members consider Rev. Moon to be the Messiah. Research has shown that 95% of members who join, eventually drop out. So the practice of gradually introducing the teachings has no significant effect on retention. | |||
| ::Well, elementary schools fit the criteria as well. ] | |||
| Wikipedians keep asserting, "there ARE cults" and we have to describe them. Well, if you mean, there ARE groups whose teachings YOU consider false, then I agree. If you're a Democrat, you think Bush is "lying and people are dying". But Misplaced Pages can't create an article on ]s. Because it's not up to Misplaced Pages to call any politician a liar. Some Republicans think Kerry is a "liar" because he keeps changing his position on Iraq: for it, against it, for it, etc. (No, I'm not saying that Misplaced Pages should ASSERT that Kerry keeps changing his position. In his latest speech, at NYU, he said he has "one position" on Iraq. So Misplaced Pages would have to take the NEUTRAL position of saying that one side calls him a waverer, the other side calls him steadfast. | |||
| Similarly, one side says that GROUP X has false teachings, or exists only to benefit its leader(s), or "brainwashes" its followers. Fine. Just don't forget to say: | |||
| *that most observers of religions note that nearly every group has SOMEONE who regards its teachings as false (Catholics call Buddhists false, Evangelical Christians call Muslims false, various denominations within Christianity call EVERY OTHER denomination false. | |||
| *that the claims of "only existing to benefit its leaders" are (in some major and minor cases) disputed, both by current members and some outsiders | |||
| *that the theory of "brainwashing" is, at best, in dispute -- and that at least one scientific body has officially REFUSED to support it | |||
| Okay, that was way too long. It would have been faster if I just made the necessary changes. But Andries and uc and others don't want me to; they say take it slow. So let's get started on the "evolution" of these articles. | |||
| Breathlessly, | |||
| ] 14:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know why dont you go ahead and re-write the article? I would kindly suggest that you create a new article at ] and propose it as an alternative. The currenmt article has soo many issues with it that it needs to be re-written from a ''tabula rassa'' .--] 14:54, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thank you, EdPoor, for your input. Yes, I also think that the best way would be to rewrite the article from scratch, incorporating the previous input (especially by Andries), but properly attributing everything. I am still concerned, however, about that there will be inevitable duplications of content with anti-cult movement article, so I previously suggested moving some parts there (anti-cult checklists specifically). What would you say? Anyway, I still don't have enough time to invest in this, so would you mind start writing a draft? We then can debate and improve it. Otherwise we will still be debating what's currently there without significant improvement for a long period of time... ] | |||
| :Ed and all, It is not just false beliefs. It is also about ], betrayal of trust after encouraging unlimited devotion. It is about ]. It is about exploitation. It is about ] with the culprits never convicted and ] . It is about a cunning ]. It is about losing the community of believers whom I considered my family. It is about finding out that your God to whom you pray and fostered devotion everyday is a ]. Can you imagine that it took me years to recover from the shock? It is the story of my life called Sathya Sai Baba. You can see the documentary on 25 Sept 2004 on BBC World Service. | |||
| :I mean the unjustified persecution and stigmatization of members of minority religions such as you experienced is just one side of the story. The other side of the story is that normal people get sucked into NRMs that have corpses in the closet and get harmed ] 18:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Andries, while I can understand and appreciate your personal suffering (and I honestly mean it) you cannot assume that just because someone slaps a label of "destructive cult" it makes it so. This is the problem with this article. Your affinity with other ex-follower's plight is also understandable. But please accept that your POV is getting in the way. Your afinity with the likes of Hassan and Rick Ross, is also understandable, but please do not accept what they say just because of your experience with SSB. Look at what they say dispassionately and you will see what I mean. | |||
| ::It is only by Ed, you, me and others working together we can get these articles in a shape that makes true the NPOV principle. It is a hard, uphill road, but one that is worth traversing IMO --] 21:33, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::Golly, Andries, I had no idea... Now that I know more about where you're coming from, I have even more respect for your sense of restraint and fairness. It must be hard adhering to the ] after such a shocking experience. --] 21:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Ed, and Jossi, thanks for your sympathy. Can we replace the disputed fact by a disputed neutrality? I would support the non-NPOV warning. The checklists are now clearly attributed to anti-cult activists and mentioned as disputed among scholars. If you think that the disputed fact label can not removed then could you please tell me what facts in the article you dispute. Thanks ] 13:33, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==France== | |||
| It appears from a remark made over on the Landmark Education article that the French government through its anti-cult law is either maintaining a list of cults or actively prosecuting certain cults. That would be a dynamite list to include in this article, since it implicates governmental discretion and sanction. And speaking of ], that article is currently undergoing some back-and-forth POV shifting, if anyone here is interested in getting into that fray. --] 18:47, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree to adding the list from the French government. That list was created based mainly on unverified "testimonies" of apostates and by anti-cult "specialists". There is also plenty of evidence that the French commission was pursuing a hidden agenda. I will try and dig information that supports this. | |||
| :If you insist in adding that list, then we will need to create a new page to present the controversy raised by the Ftench commission. | |||
| :This is the info | |||
| :*The anti-cult french comission's report with their list http://cftf.com/french/Les_Sectes_en_France/cults.html | |||
| :*Translation of the Anti-cult law (a.k.k. Piccard law) : http://www.cesnur.org/2001/fr_law_en.htm | |||
| :*A large body of documents and articles about thin in the ] website http://www.cesnur.org/testi/fr2K_index.htm | |||
| :*BBC news http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/030102FranceCults.asp | |||
| :*Essay on the subject: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_franc.htm | |||
| :This is an excerpt from an address on the anti-cult Piccard law, by Stuart A Wright (highlights mine): | |||
| :''Following the second wave of suicides by Solar Temple members in 1995, the French security division of the police (Renseignements generaux or R.G.) created a list of suspect religious organizations, without reference to any sociological definition or legal standard. The list was seized upon by the French National Assembly which adopted a resolution to create a commission of inquiry "assigned to study the cult phenomenon." At the end of its work, which was carried out in strict secrecy, the commission, chaired by representative Alain Gest, published a report entitled "Sects in France." '''The commission defined a set of "danger criteria" that enabled it to classify religious organizations posing a threat (Hervieu-Leger, 2001:249). It identified "172 groups and the Jehovah's Witnesses," and took credit for compiling the list, which was actually developed by the R.G. Lobbying by militant activists representing two anticult organizations, the Association for the Defense of the Family and the Individual (ADFI) and the Center Against Mental Manipulation''' (CCMM or Center contre les manipulations mentales) led the government to put into place a significant arsenal of repressive measures against the blacklisted groups (Garay, 1999:7)'' | |||
| :Fulltext at http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/wright.htm | |||
| :--] 19:40, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not necessarily insisting on including the list, but more to the point I'm certainly not suggesting the list be necessarily treated approvingly by the article or used as a benchmark for determining actual cult status. I mean, I looked at the cult list and it includes the Mormons and the Christian Scientists. Most people reading the Christian Science Monitor don't consider themselves to be reading a cult rag. The dissonance grows especially piquant with respect to the portion of the article's brief mention of the French law that contains a vague refernce to "criminal cults." Indeed, the whole notion of government swimming in these waters sets off my American liberality alarm. By the same token, that notion of government getting into a religious fray and declaring, "these ones are cults, we've decided, and here are legal measures we're imposing to meet them" is huge in significance to the topic. Actually, the text block you give above with a little NPOVing would be a nice addition. --] 21:07, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::The government never officially declared certain groups as cults. ] 07:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::Added some text about France and Belgium anti-cult legislation. | |||
| :::The problem with this atricle that it is a mess. Mixing destructive cult stuff, with NRMs with anti-cultists checklists. A big mishmash with no head or tail, just an anti-cult POV. It needs re-witing IMHO. ] 04:37, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I think that there is severe confusion about the attitude of the French government with respect to sects. I'll first given the legal facts, which many foreign commentators seem to ignore. | |||
| * A list of alleged cults was given as part of a 1995 by a parliamentary commission, which was formed following a series of frightening mass crimes involving "cults" in France and abroad. This report is neither law nor regulation, and not the official position of the French government. It's therefore highly misleading to claim this list forms part of the French government's policy. | |||
| * In 2001, a was voted. This law makes it possible to prosecute a moral persona (i.e. a corporation or association, as opposed to a physical persona, i.e. a human person) for certain crimes in defined circumstances, as well as it makes it possible for a court to dissolve this persona if it seeks certain criminal goals. Crimes affected by this law include, for instance, crimes against people (murder, rape...) as well as practicing medicine illegally (i.e. without a doctorate in medicine etc...). | |||
| An additional note: the French government is, by law, prohibited from granting recognition to ''any'' religion; therefore the claims from some movements that they are discriminated against because the government does not wish to recognize them as a religion are just misguided or intentionally misleading. | |||
| Note that no law nor any authoritative government text declares that the Jehovak Witnesses and Christian Science are sects or that they should be fought or prosecuted. | |||
| The claim that religious groups are not given recourse to the law to get out of the list is also exceedingly misleading. This list is not standing legislation, but a part of a specific report published on a certain date. It does not make sense legally to ask to get erased from a dated publication (unless there is some kind of censorship and rewriting of history). | |||
| Now, you seem to disagree with the commission's classifying Christian Science as a sect. I think that one of the criteria was the religious organization's insistence on abandoning scientific medicine and using faith healing. | |||
| ] 11:30, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :David is right about Christian Science. See http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/09/01/fraser/index.html | |||
| :] 12:25, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :''I'll first given the legal facts, which many '''foreign''' commentators seem to ignore.''. What do you mean by ''foreign''? This is the problem that pervades France today... Your explanation on the legal aspects is not enough to cover the fact that French and Belgium legislation against freedom of beliefs is a sad and appalling reality.--] 16:01, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::By "foreign" in the context of France, I mean the obvious: people from outside France who comment on length on alleged French legal items while ignoring basic facts, including the difference between a parliamentary report and legislation. | |||
| ::The rest of your answer is mere unsubstantiated accusation. You seem to know next to nothing about French reality, except what is written about it in web sites with an agenda. ] 16:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, are saying that there is no anti-sect legislation in France? --] 16:58, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're confusing the issues. There is legislation aimed at curtailing criminal activity by organized criminal groups posturing as religious groups. This legislation has no notion of "accepted" or "rejected" religious dogmas (which would be unconstitutional), nor does it list any particular group. ] 17:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The proof is in the pudding as they say. France has shown an irrational abhorrence to freedom of beliefs that is expressed in their "commissions", and their laws, regardless of what you say. Any one can see that. Ask any person that follows a religion that is not in the mainstream in France. Ask them if they feel safe and protected by their goverment. You will be surprised. IMO, France's legislation is anachronistic. --] 22:19, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Again, I think you're mixing things up. First, let me say that attributing feelings like "abhorrence" to a large group of people such as a country is dubious. It is indeed true that most people distrust groups that they perceive as manipulating their followers into donating their wealth to a "guru", are secretive, educate their children away from other children, etc... and this is reflected at the political level. | |||
| ::::::However, you should note that such distrust and possible hostility is not geared towards religious ''beliefs'', but again worldly ''activities''. Most people would feel suspicious about the Opus Dei, even though it's a Roman Catholic group. Similarly, you should note that the French government does not grant recognition to any religion or religious dogma; contrary to, if I may say, the US government, which mandates the use of monotheist affirmations like "under God" or "In God we trust". | |||
| ::::::You're now challenging me to see what happens to followers of non-mainstream religions. I don't know exactly what's "mainstream" or not – I suppose that mainstream religious beliefs in France would include atheism and Roman Catholicism, then Islam, Judaism and "usual" Protestantism. However, down the block where I live there is a large 7-day Adventist Church, certainly a tiny minority religion. It's prosperous and the faithful really don't sound like they're being persecuted. Thus, your "any person" claim is clearly overblown... | |||
| ::::::Finally, we're trying to write an encyclopedia here. On controversial issues, we should try to stick to checkable facts. French legislation can be easily verified and checked online. Court actions are reported in the press, lawsuits are public, and therefore one can check with some objectivity how a certain law is enforced. On the other hand, arguments such as "ask any person..." have high potential for sampling bias, personal opinions and the pushing of bias. ] 06:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I have to agree with you. Sorry for my somewhat un-encyclopedic stance, but having being harassed because of my beliefs and seeing friends of mine in France being harassed as well, makes me a bit edgy. I will stick to the facts and provide references to the POV I was expressing. --] 15:45, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| David: I am interested to know your POV on the MIVILUDES and your comments on this paper by Regis Dericquebourg http://www.cesnur.org/2003/vil2003_dericquebourg.htm. Thanks. --] 20:46, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :This article is laughable for its bias. | |||
| :"The attempts to eliminate any form of non-conformist religiosity, whether it was denied or not, were criticised by international human rights organisations, religious freedom defence associations, foreign academics and politicians." <-- clearly a broad exaggeration | |||
| :There is, again, no definition of "conformant" or "official" religiosity in France; as I said before, the government is prohibited by law to grant or withdraw recognition to religious, and never ever makes a statement regarding religious ''beliefs'' (note the contrast with the US government, which mandates the use of monotheist mottos). | |||
| :I think that the article seeks to exploit the anti-"Socialist" bias in the American society by deliberately discussing the Jospin government as made of communists, socialists and Greens, making it appear extremist, while calling the Raffarin government "moderate right". This political bias is shown by this ridiculous poll: | |||
| ::In the question "If so, why?," we had asked to choose two of the following reasons maximum: | |||
| ::1) because the right does not have an anti-sect ideology; | |||
| ::2) because the right is more tolerant than the left; | |||
| ::3) because the right does not have an anti-religious ideology; | |||
| ::4) because the right will deal with more important issues; | |||
| ::5) because the right will want to differentiate themselves from the left; | |||
| ::6) because the right is less linked to freemasonry lodges. | |||
| :This is quite laughable. | |||
| :When I browse the organigram of the Ministry of the Interior, I see no "Office for Religious Affairs". There is probably still some kind of office somewhere in the ministry bureaucracy charged with various duties with respect to ] and legal recognitions of religious groups, but it seems extremely tiny. "It also acts as the religious police." is sheer paranoia. There is no religious police in France (unlike in Iran, Saudi Arabia etc...). What is meant by this sentence, I cannot fathom. | |||
| :In short, I see lots of innuendo, unsubstantiated allegations, factual errors, and possible political manipulation. ] 10:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I removed the following: | |||
| On the other hand, French anti-cultist organizations such as the ] (Center Against Mind Control), the European federation of anti-cult movements ] and the French governmental Mission to Fight Cults (MILS, headed by ]) have assisted the Chinese government in what some consider is state-persecution of religious minorities in China. | |||
| Alain Vivien attended a colloquium on the topic of cults in China. This does not imply any assistance of the French government or the MILS to the Chinese government, nor does Alain Vivien express the official position of the French government. | |||
| I shall repeat myself: Mr Vivien was not a government minister, or a spokesman for any part of the executive branch. He was not even a government employee. Mr Vivien was the head of an advisory government commission which neither writes laws nor issues regulations, but merely writes reports. | |||
| The following could be more accurate: "Mr Alain Vivien, head of the French Interministerial Mission to Fight Cults (MILS), now disbanded, attended a colloquium organized by the Chinese government on the topic of cults." | |||
| ::Note that I provided some candidate for a rephrased text on the talk page, for you to read and comment. | |||
| ::I removed the text because it was laced with unsubstantiated inferences. You stated that a French governmental entity was assisting the Chinese government in a state persecution of religious minorities. This is a grave accusation, and it certainly needs to be backed with evidence. So far, the only evidence shown is attendance in a colloquium. | |||
| ::I'll give you an example: scientists from many countries attend scientific colloquia organized by US government agencies operating under the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense. Does this mean that the said scientists assist the US government in its nuclear program or military policies? Does this mean that they support the said policies? If those scientists work for public institutions, does this mean their government supports the US government's military policy? | |||
| ::It's not so much that I don't think that the facts that CESNUR reports are false (they may or may not be), it is that they draw many unwarranted inferences from them. We are here dealing with government commissions that operate in the open, as opposed to security or intelligence agencies. Certainly, if MILS was involved in actual assistance to the Chinese government, there would be more evidence than mere assistance in a meeting. ] 17:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Please stop quoting CESNUR texts as if they were a fair, balanced and informational source. CESNUR is a pressure group fighting for certain interests. Taking information from CESNUR is akin to quoting Michael Moore on American politics – it's surely inflammatory, it may have a basis of truth, but it's certainly not neutral nor precise nor unbiased. ] 09:52, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, are there any substantial verifiable facts than makes you believe that CESNUR is a "pressure group" fighting for "certain" interests? If so, please kindly share them with us. As to France's unadvertized cooperation with China in prosecution of Falung Gong, you may read this in newspapers, so please do not deny the obvious (by cooperation I mean arresting Falung Gong followers during visits of Chinese delegation by police, then releasing without any charges). I does not matter if MILF officially cooperates or police unoficially does it. CESNUR is simply reprinting these newspaper publications, which you can read yourself if interested. I don't exactly understand your argumentation, especially in view of the fact than the many groups that experience such persecution did not commit any crimes worth repeating in France. We judge by deeds, not declarations. See Human Rights Watch for reference. ] | |||
| :::You are totally mixing up the issues. On several occasions, and it was a subject of controversy in France, the French government implemented extra "security measures" when top-level Chinese delegations wre coming. Those security measures, in particular, prevented protesters - including pro-Tibet and pro-Falung Gong protesters - from going near the course of movement of the Chinese delegation. I may add that similar measures were also implemented when president ] came to France, as well as for the ] summit. As a consequence, protesters were arrested. As it often happens in such circumstances (and the same happens with pro-Falung Gong protesters, Anarchists, Communists or whatever protesters), most protesters could only be charged with minor offenses (such as trespassing, resisting arrest...) and the prosecution says that they won't prosecute the case after all (if only because the "trouble" has ceased). | |||
| :::Those extra security measures were highly controversial. Many people, including conservatives normally backing Chirac's policies, argued that it was too much in favor of the dictatorial government of China. Some argued that it was a bit too much to win a market share in China. This was quite evident in the French press. | |||
| :::However, it is quite excessive and misguided that it means that France assists China in the prosecution of Falung Gong. When France arrests anti-George W. Bush protesters that wanted to disrupt his visit, does it mean that France assists George W. Bush in repression against anarchists or in the prosecution of the war in Iraq? Certainly, there would be an absurdity there. | |||
| :::Of course, neither MILS (which no longer exist) nor MIVILUDE give orders to the police. Suggesting this totally ignores the way the French government works. Again, if I can repeat myself, MILS and MIVILUDE do not have any kind of authority whatsoever. They just publish reports, basically. | |||
| :::As to the many press articles discussion the alleged collaboration, I would prefer that you stick to informative articles, where journalists know the facts, and not refer to op-ed pieces or other commentaries as authoritative sources. | |||
| :::As for my argumentation, it's actually quite simple: there are facts, and there are the interpretations and inferences you draw from them. All the articles I saw in Cesnur seemed very high in oriented commentary, and very lacking in actual fair and balanced descriptions of events. This strikes me as op-ed, not as objective reporting. | |||
| :::For instance, the facts reported in an article may actually be true, but the inferences drawn from them totally bogus. As explained above, nobody intellectually honest can conclude that if France arrests Falung Gong protesters during a Chinese official visit, it means it supports repression against Falung Gong. A much simpler explanation is that the French government did not want any kind of disruption during a visit where major economic issues were discussed. Never attribute to mischeviousness and hidden dealings what can be attributed to mere greed and expediency. ] 20:55, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :The fact that your POV is that CESNUR is not a trustworthy source, does not give you the right to remove the text. That is unccpetable behavior. You coud have tried and improved upon the text I entered. ] 15:47, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jossi, do not quote CESNUR where it refers to outside source, quote the originals. ] | |||
| ::'''To David''' and others, ] is a network of scholars and the quality of its publications depends very much on the authors. I have read a lot of publications by CESNUR and it is not, in contrast to popular belief, an organization that defends cults or NRMs. It is however less critical than the anti-cult movement and they believe that some anti-cult activists exaggerate. ] 17:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::Mmmh. I stand corrected. It's just that all the publications I've ever seen from this group seemed highly opinionated and un-scholarly. I've done my share of scholarly publications and editing of scholarly publications (though not in the social sciences), I know people working in the social sciences, and I can tell you that one thing that is valued in scholarly publishing is precision. Especially, the use of hyperbole, exaggerated comparisons and inflammatory terms is banned. | |||
| :::Seriously, a text that talks of "religious police" with respect to an office in a French government ministry, without giving any kind of reason or definition of what is meant, is not a serious scholarly piece. It's more probably an opinion piece that seeks to use unfavorable comparisons and suggestions in order to push a certain opinion. | |||
| :::This text and others I've seen would not belong on a serious scholarly site. I don't know whether there are peer reviewing mechanisms in place at CESNUR, but in any case, the site seems more like an opinion soap box than a serious scholarly publication. ] 18:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::David, if a scholar decides to write a popular article or (god forbid) a critical piece (with occasional use of hyperbols), that does not make him less scholarly or expert in his area, IMO. | |||
| :::::As I said, this makes the article un-scholarly. This is, to summarize, one difference between an encyclopedia article (or a scholarly "paper") and an op-ed piece. In the former, you have to make your base yourself on facts and be objective (even if it leads to dull writing). In the latter, it is expected that objectivity has been sacrificed in favor of punchiness. | |||
| :::::It is possible for a scholar to write both editorial and scholarly paper. However, when reading editorial papers, even written by an established scholar, we must be aware that the paper is there to advance an opinion or a cause, not give a fair and balanced view, and may actually be lacking in the way of argumentation. | |||
| :::::Furthermore, scholarly writing works through impartial peer reviewing in a wide field, i.e. people of various opinions and schools of thought are allowed to criticize the paper. CESNUR does not fit this picture. ] 20:58, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think part of the problem with CESNUR is that polemical articles and scholarly research works are mixed on their site. Anyway, it is clear enough that CESNUR is not an organization, it's an association of independent scholars. So we could sometimes erroneously attribute an opinion of a scholar to some unified CESNUR position (while in fact it is not so) or even mix newspaper articles that CESNUR website reprints with scholarly works. As with everything else, I pretty much agree with your opinion, but please be aware that CESNUR is doing a favor by publishing the works on internet (because not many of us will go an extra mile to visit libraries).] | |||
| ==Definition of cult== | |||
| I think we need to make a subtle but crucial distinction between: | |||
| *a religious group which some people think is spurious; and, | |||
| *a religious group which is "really and truly bad" | |||
| It was the issue of how we Wikipedians should write about the checklists that made me think of this: what are the checklists being used for? | |||
| *to determine whether some people think the group is spurious? or, | |||
| *to determine whether the group is really and truly bad? | |||
| It looks like each of the three checklists was designed and intended for the latter purpose. The promoters of these checklists urge people to compare a religious group's characteristics with the bullet points, and to conclude that the group is "a cult" if it matches up with enough points. | |||
| So it's not a case of: | |||
| *Here are characteristics of religious groups which a lot of people dislike; but, | |||
| *Here are characteristics which, if group X has too many of them, mean IN OUR OPINION that X is fake and dangerous! | |||
| From that advocate's point of view (POV), any group with enough of these characteristics is NECESSARILY SPURIOUS. | |||
| I think we're likely to need a separate article (at least for temporary development purposes) for ]s. | |||
| It would be interesting to explore also WHY these various advocates believe that the posthesesssion of characteristics is likely to make a group spurious. And also whether they believe the checklists can or must not apply to mainstream religions like Roman Catholic Church. (And if not, why not?) --] 23:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have to admit that anti-cult activists rarely apply these checklists to mainstream religion. May be it is because minority religions are easy targets. ] 23:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, it's because they're something to apply when there's clearly pathological behaviour occurring. Like the DSM-IV - you could fit mentally healthy people to its criteria, but that's a misapplication, because for a lot of the stuff in it, if it isn't a problem then it isn't a problem - ] 17:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, psychiatry is an interesting science and profession. If there is clearly pathological things gong on, there is criminal police to deal with it. Criminal police, as you know, does not try to prevent crime by profiling the potential criminals using "science" of this sort and it acts when the crimes are already committed or there is sufficient signs that they might be committed soon (as when police learns someone has stockpiled an arsenal of illegal arms). Anti-cult activists do not adgere to these common principles. | |||
| ==Barker's list of for potentially dangerous situations== | |||
| From Eileen Barker 1992:137. I translated the list back from Dutch to English. It is claimed that this list is based on empirical research but personally I have my doubts about it because this seems very difficult to research empirically to me. I need to see the original research that I do not have here. | |||
| #A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically or socially | |||
| #Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality. | |||
| #Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others. | |||
| #Making sharp distinctions between us and them. divine and satanic, good and evil etc. that are not open for discussion. | |||
| #Leader who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to their followers. | |||
| #Leader and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain goal. | |||
| I propose replacing one "anti-cult checklist" by this list. ] 23:52, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :: To my knowledge, while Barker's position is much less radical, it does not make her checklist a mainstream science. ] | |||
| ==The deletions by Ed Poor: picture and extreme examples== | |||
| *Ed, do you have an alternative for the picture of Jim Jones? I can not think of any other picture than the old one that would offend nobody. I agree that it is not very fair that relatively harmless groups are associated with Jim Jones but the the public and the media see Jim Jones as '''the''' example of a cult. The expression ''destructive cult'' is not very usual, whether you or I like it or not. ] 17:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * I oppose to the deletions of the extreme historical examples. Without them the article becomes too abstract. The article explicitly mentioned that these examples are rare and extreme. Another reason why I think that the examples should be restored is that the difference between ''cult'' and ''destructive cult'' is vague/gray i.e. my former group Sathya Sai Baba exploits (some of) its members but it is certainly not as destructive and dangerous as the People's Temple. ] 17:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, it's like in propaganda pamphlet. Jim Jones is not subject of this article. If we are to keep him, then we need to add less odious figures to add balance, would you agree? Otherwise it inadvertedly equates Sathya Sai Baba (or Maharishi) with Jim Jones, which is appropriate in polemics (pamphlets etc), but not very appropriate in articles, I believe. - ExitControl | |||
| ==Other reply to Ed Poor== | |||
| * I think the checklists are important for potential new members and their family to predict the chance of getting harmed. Not as an indication of evil. I mean, how on earth do you know what is going to happen with the group you are in? That is why these checklists can be helpful. ] 17:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, Andries, checklist may be effective in preventing potential recruits to join the ugly cults, but they are not very effective in maintaining a scientific and unbiased discourse. We need to take into account that. - ExitControl | |||
| :This may be wishful thinking from your part, Andries. These checklists are misleading as they are presented as "tools" to assess if a cult is destructive or not and these tools lack scientific substance. This is at the core of this controversy. You need to find a way to NPOV what these checklist are and who created them. The catch-all approach of these checklist are a liability. --] 22:44, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I actually think you're both expressing a valid concern here. Andries wants the public to know '''before getting too deeply involved in a NRM''' if it's going to be a bad experience; Zappaz, I guess, wants to make sure we don't '''endorse the tools''' prematurely. --] 13:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::Frankly, upon consideration I would like to vote in favour of lists, but with proper attribution. I think we need to say who invented the lists, whether they are mainstream science (they're not), who uses and refers to them and what are the concerns related to them. ] | |||
| ==Ed, Lifton's checklist is called thought reform, not brainwashing== | |||
| I borrowed the book from the university libray but have not yet read it. I only glanced at the relevant chapter (nr. 22) ] 18:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Andries, | |||
| This page is 55 kilobytes long, and I'm falling behind in my reading. In the interests of wiki-harmony, please just go ahead and revert any change I've made that you disagree with. Because I have come to trust you, I'm sure that you will have good reasons for any such change. | |||
| For example, '''Thought Reforem checklist''' of Lifton. Or even call it "Lifton's checklist". (I can get pretty sloppy when I rely on my memory.) --] 18:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Cult checklists== | |||
| (moved from ]) | |||
| You wrote: | |||
| :No, it's because they're something to apply when there's clearly pathological behaviour occurring. Like the DSM-IV - you could fit mentally healthy people to its criteria, but that's a misapplication, because for a lot of the stuff in it, if it isn't a problem then it isn't a problem | |||
| Both of these ideas seem like ]s to me: | |||
| * a cult is a group which has the characteristics in this cult checklist | |||
| * a mental illness is a category mention in DSM-IV. | |||
| This would mean that homosexuality '''really was''' a mental illness when it was listed in DSM, but that it '''became okay''' when they voted to take it out. I don't think either you or I believes that being listed in (or taken out of) DSM changes the '''factuality''' of the assertion of that homosexuality is a disorder (see ] or ]). | |||
| The article on ]s needs to explain WHY a group having some or all of the characteristics in any of the checklists would be '''spurious''' or '''destructive'''. If somebody has studied groups like ], etc., and found that they tended to have certain features in common, then we should name that person, and tell readers how the research was conducted. | |||
| We also need some explanation about whether groups which have historically proven NOT to be destructive, or which have gained wide mainstream acceptance as spiritually GENUINE, share any "cult" features. We could start with a simple example: | |||
| Roman Catholics follow the pope, who answers to no earthly authority. In fact, their church headquarters has its own sovereign territory and even a (token) army! We need to explain what having a '''leader who answers to no one''' indicates about a religious group, especially how it shows that the group is likely or unlikely to commit murder. And so on. | |||
| Want to help with this? --] 19:11, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :''"This would mean that homosexuality '''really was''' a mental illness when it was listed in DSM, but that it '''became okay''' when they voted to take it out."'' - No, it would mean that the patient thought it was but that they could then be told it wasn't. | |||
| :I do keep an eye on the article and will probably weigh in at some point. | |||
| :By the way, it has the all-time worst intro section I've seen on a Misplaced Pages article. Not just crap, but actively bad. You weren't involved, were you? - ] 21:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::LOL. Which article, ] or ]? I've been in both, er, I mean, well, you know... --] 21:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that the current intro is not good. We desperately need more good, knowledgeable authors on this complicated subject. May be the French article should be translated, which I find quite good. I am a bit worried that Ed goes too far in belittling the difference between mainstream religions and the possible harm of cults involvement. At least NRMs are more unpredictable than mainstream religions and the intensity of member's involvement in the NRM is generally much bigger. That combination alone can be a cause for possible harm and hence is a reason for worry and healthy skepticism. ] 21:34, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Pretty much agree with your observation, Andries. But do not forget the Crusades, Inquisition, Islamic Fundamentalism et cetera. When an NRM is involved in some crime, quote usually it's just several members of a group that has several thousand members, so perhaps it is natural for external observers to assume that this is a coordinated criminal activity taking place. When we read about rapes in an Army (well, there are a lot of rapes taking place each year in the military, as you know), we tend to assume these are isolated incidents. Besides, NRM don't have such level of government support or legal/PR shielding like armies or large corporations. We may argue about Scientology and similar prosperous groups, but the scale is different anyway. And 90% of accusations deal with non-criminal "harm", such as separation from family or something like that, very emotional things are being said but is it really much different with many mainstream religiouns? Take Catholic priests with their celibate. Probably the difference is not that large. - ExitControl | |||
| :::We also need coverage of non-religious cults, e.g. in political groups (small terrorist groups, for example). I vaguely recall referable study of this stuff. Because cultishness is not actually about religion, it seems to be about the group dynamic. '''THOUGH I WOULDN'T SAY SO IN THE ARTICLE WITHOUT A REFERENCE.''' - ] 07:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Andries, I like what you said about intensity and unpredictability. Catholic nuns and monks conduct a intense but '''predictable''' lifetstyle; perhaps that's why convents and monasteries are never (or very rarely) called "cults". There's a well-know ] for becoming a group member: novice, initiate, etc. There's even a famous movie -- '']'' -- whose plot hinges on a young lady's decision NOT to become a nun (she leaves the convent with the mother superior's blessing and marries a sailor!). --] 15:50, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Meaningless paragraph== | |||
| I removed a paragraph saying that certain countries (with a list of specific countries) gave total freedom to cults as long as they did not break laws. This is largely meaningless, because intolerant countries will probably draft laws that cults would break (for instance, laws against conversions from the state religion, or laws restricting the practice of religion to some official religion, or some official religion plus tolerated religions, as in Iran). What could perhaps be more meaningful would be saying that certain countries do not have laws regulating beliefs and religious practice per se and do not engage in legal action against cults, or other repressive measures, as long as they do not breach non-religious laws (for instance, laws against crimes against people or crime against property). Still, this would make the list highly irrelevant, since this is the case of most developed countries (I believe it includes the whole European Union, as well as the United States). ] 20:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Checklists== | |||
| I moved the ]s to a new article. ] ] 17:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks to Andries for adding the following: | |||
| :There is no reliable, generally accepted way to determine what groups will turn into destructive cults, nor is there such a way to determine what groups will harm its members. In spite of that, popular but non-scientific ]s try to predict the probablity of harm. | |||
| I like the phrase ''popular but non-scientific''. ] ] 18:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:57, 28 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cult article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unmerging political cult
Per above, the list of political cults is a drag on this article and for the quality of this one to be improved it should be removed. However the concept of "political cult" is probably notable and the merge was 11 years ago. Any consensus to split it back out again? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: Well, you already cut it out of the article without any discussion, so I suggest you either put it back in and discuss it, or make an article out of the content you removed. (removed content & removed citations) ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Grorp I'm willing to do that provided there is sufficient consensus to undo the merge. Do you think there's enough for a whole article on the concept of "political cults"? I think probably. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I put the content and sources in User:Grorp/sandbox5, so you can read it there, or copy it, or rename/move it. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- ...meaning you could create a standalone article. I don't object to splitting it out of Cult. And come to think of it, it would be better for you to use the content by copying it and noting the copy being from Cult, to keep track of the edit history per wiki guidelines. I just slapped it into that sandbox; and I'll delete it afterwards. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am irritated but honestly I couldn't find many sources on the topic of "political cults" specifically, other than a single Turkish journal article and the On the Edge book. However the term is used so often it's drowned in a sea of mentions. I feel there should be... something. Can you find anything? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll look. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC) I'll add some potential sources here as I find them. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am irritated but honestly I couldn't find many sources on the topic of "political cults" specifically, other than a single Turkish journal article and the On the Edge book. However the term is used so often it's drowned in a sea of mentions. I feel there should be... something. Can you find anything? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- ...meaning you could create a standalone article. I don't object to splitting it out of Cult. And come to think of it, it would be better for you to use the content by copying it and noting the copy being from Cult, to keep track of the edit history per wiki guidelines. I just slapped it into that sandbox; and I'll delete it afterwards. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I put the content and sources in User:Grorp/sandbox5, so you can read it there, or copy it, or rename/move it. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Grorp I'm willing to do that provided there is sufficient consensus to undo the merge. Do you think there's enough for a whole article on the concept of "political cults"? I think probably. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I too think all of this trivial discussion of the cults themselves isn't helpful here. I'd just list and link. Valereee (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
References
- Silayeva, Zoya Vladimirovna. "Political Cults as a New Phenomenon of Religious Studies" (PDF). Journal of History Culture and Art Research. 6 (4): 523–530. doi:10.7596/taksad.v6i4.1143.
- "Political Cult vs. Political Party: Understanding the Differences". spiceislander.com. July 9, 2023.
- Altemeyer, Bob (2006). The Authoritarians (PDF).
- Márquez, Xavier (2018). "Two Models of Political Leader Cults: Propaganda and Ritual". Politics, Religion & Ideology. 19 (3): 265–284. doi:10.1080/21567689.2018.1510392.
National values
List five causes of cultism 102.88.68.33 (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
If this is a controversial term, then label it as such
The lead is not up to WP:MOS and WP:LEAD standards. English is being tortured (by whom?) and some vague notion of laity is being evoked (by us). If we need to make sure it's clear that there is an idealogical war being waged over this term, let's say it is "controversial" or "contested" or "pejorative" and then we owe the general reader a clear explanation of its common sense everyday meaning. "perceived to be" is vague and does no one any good. "lay" is meaningless as there relevant epistemic community is not specified and probably can't be specified without taking a side. Here is my proposed lead. We start with the common usage and then tack on caveats and modifiers further on in the article:
Cult is a pejorative term for a religious or idealogical group typically led by a charismatic leader who tightly controls the members.
Cheers.DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @DolyaIskrina I agree with you that it could be written better. The problem with this is that this term has a tortured and inconsistent definition and half the sources about it nowadays are about people fighting about the definition - controversial is perhaps understating it. About the article now: a large majority of this article is citing antiquated works on the definition of cult from religious studies/sociology, which is the discipline that studies what the general person thinks of when they hear cult, but later abandoned the term, so a lot of this article functions as an antiquated snapshot of NRMs.
- I tried to cut out the really old sources (of which there is still too much) and extremely bad sources a few months ago, but I had to stop making progress further because I cannot figure out what this article should should be about. Is it about the term cult (would probably be easier to write) or are we going to write about it acting as if it's a concept that has any agreed upon aspects besides a label, which is a very disputed idea. In any case we need to stop using sources that are very clearly just about NRMs without reference to the broader concept (but then what do we use? And then the sources that tend to use the word cult dispute the NRM label...). I keep trying to look at the more recent sources and come to the conclusion that everyone is talking about different things which is hard to write an encyclopedia article from. And that definition, which is currently in the article, seems not great. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I feel your pain. Like "pseudoscience" there is a demarcation problem with cult. I'm reminded of the quip that the difference between a dialect and a language is an army. I'm willing to try to puzzle this one out if you want help. In the meantime, I just searched the term and an older wikipedia definition came up. "Cult is a term for a group with deviant beliefs and practices, often led by a charismatic leader. The term is controversial and has different meanings in popular culture and academia. " This seems good to me. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah certainly something needs to be done here, and the more voices here the better. I like that older definition more than what we have now, and wouldn't mind reinstating it - though in academia there are many divergent senses of the term, so maybe just splitting that between the two is misleading. I think it would help if we had a clearer guide on what we are trying to make this page be about. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I feel your pain. Like "pseudoscience" there is a demarcation problem with cult. I'm reminded of the quip that the difference between a dialect and a language is an army. I'm willing to try to puzzle this one out if you want help. In the meantime, I just searched the term and an older wikipedia definition came up. "Cult is a term for a group with deviant beliefs and practices, often led by a charismatic leader. The term is controversial and has different meanings in popular culture and academia. " This seems good to me. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Lead needs rewriting
The lead sentence was recently removed, leaving the article to go straight into a defense. No, you need to describe "What is it?" before you dive into defending contentious contemporary usage. The lead is full of pompous-sounding scholarly-type gobbledygook. The lead should introduce the topic and be a summary of the article. I see no summary in this current lead. Use MOS:LEAD for guidance. Think "How would you describe 'cult' to a child?" Most people will only read the lead. It had better explain "What is a cult?" to the average reader. This is an encyclopedia, not a scholar's battleground. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- My issue with that is the definition of cult I would use to explain to a child is "harmful group of weirdos" which may be difficult to find sourcing support for. We don't get to decide what something is or isn't. I do agree that the sentence as before was a very... bad definition, relative to pretty much anything, but I don't know what we should replace it with. Similar problem to Cargo cult I suppose where defining it tends to get lost in the academic weeds (see the year of arguing on the talk page) PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be dangerous for Misplaced Pages to be so reductive as to call a cult a "harmful group of weirdos". Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 Then what is it? Because sure, reductive or whatever, I would argue such a definition is far closer to the layman perception (as Grorp appealed to) than arcane academic terminology, which there is almost no agreement on. As such I was not suggesting we use it in the article but trying to illustrate my issue with that argument. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm going to argue in favor of the "arcane academic terminology."
- While we should do everything possible to communicate academic ideas clearly and concisely we should not be reductivist and over-simplify concepts just because laymen might expect something simpler.
- As things stand I think the lede is likely to narrow about what a cult may be - however I will say that the recent revision was a net improvement to copy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 And if there are fierce disagreements on the academic front? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Then we communicate that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's possible to, when some of the sources reject the term and view it is a pejorative for a separate topic, some of the sources reject the concept of that separate topic and view it as a euphemism for this one, and some act as if they are separate things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Then we should be describing "cult" as a discursive field in which concepts regarding religion, history and marginality are interrelated in various ways. Which is, unfortunately, getting into that "arcane academic terminology" but may be more accurate than referring to cults as centralized new religious movements with charismatic leadership. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's possible to, when some of the sources reject the term and view it is a pejorative for a separate topic, some of the sources reject the concept of that separate topic and view it as a euphemism for this one, and some act as if they are separate things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Then we communicate that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 And if there are fierce disagreements on the academic front? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 Then what is it? Because sure, reductive or whatever, I would argue such a definition is far closer to the layman perception (as Grorp appealed to) than arcane academic terminology, which there is almost no agreement on. As such I was not suggesting we use it in the article but trying to illustrate my issue with that argument. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Similar problem to Cargo cult I suppose where defining it tends to get lost in the academic weeds (see the year of arguing on the talk page)
(I was involved in those arguments). I think the lead of Cargo cult has actually ended up in a reasonable place. If you go take a look, you'll see that the first paragraph actually defines and summarizes the term, then the second paragraph goes into controversy and colloquial usage. Could something like that be workable here? I do recognize that "cult" is a much broader term, and "cargo cult" is far more specific though. Leijurv (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)- Ideally something like that would be workable, but as you said cult is much broader and with cargo cult there was not a dispute between it applying to religions in Melanesia, which is at least something tying the topic together. This, not so much PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be dangerous for Misplaced Pages to be so reductive as to call a cult a "harmful group of weirdos". Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- What you added is definitely better, but it still raises a lot of questions, in that it is not supported in the body (WP:LEAD, almost everything in the lead should be in the body) and I question how agreed upon this is as a definition. I don't actually think "high control" is the most agreed upon aspect by the public, much less anyone else. Mostly perceived deviance or harmfulness. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think "blindly following" is closer than "high control" (though high control should be in the article somewhere). Also, the article was radically altered in late September by you. I'm not even going to look if my version (of concept) used to be in the body. The alterations were so expansive that I quit checking the diffs. Today's edit caught my attention because it removed the first sentence which was a "what is". ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. About my changes: All my edits were in an attempt to address the update tag, mostly reducing usage of old sources and standardizing the citation formatting. This involved trimming some things that were very specific details compared to what this is, a higher level article. I also trimmed some blatantly unreliable stuff like a citation to a random Scribd document by a random guy and stuff just repeating the Falun Gong’s ludicrous claims. I don’t recall adding much except adding bits from a 2024 book to introduce more recent elements. After that point the structure of the article became more aggravating the more I thought about it and I felt I could not improve it further without making structural changes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- And yeah we should surely have something onwiki explaining the high control group stuff, because that is a pretty widely discussed concept. I’m surprised we don’t. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- As I've said above, we should use the everyday commonsense meaning first. We should not say anything about "lay" and ideally we would not even say "a term for" WP:ISAWORDFOR.DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Then there’s an issue, and a lack of consensus as Simon above just proposed the exact opposite. Because there is no agreement on what this topic is, so you have to discuss it in the sense of varying terms, definitions and academic and popular history. See Cargo cult discussion as mentioned. A substantial portion of discussion of it a is as a label, so that is unavoidable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- As I've said above, we should use the everyday commonsense meaning first. We should not say anything about "lay" and ideally we would not even say "a term for" WP:ISAWORDFOR.DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are essentially two meanings, one the modern popular "bunch of wierdos" (pretty much restricted to English, I think), and the other the far older, more technical (but by no means "arcane") term for religious devotion. User:Grorp, at the top, seems to think he knows what "cult" means, and is impatient when this article veers away from this meaning, but it MUST do this. Cargo cult is not the best example for the older meaning. Our lead needs to explain why all Hindu temples are centred on a cult image, and most surviving Roman temples were built to support the Imperial cult. Also why the very secular councils of French seaside towns typically provide a noticeboard for Le culte (with details of religious services of all types, also in newspapers, websites etc). In general terms, this older meaning is not at all controversial, nor is it outdated, and this discussion is deep in a rabbit hole because it has pursued one example that is controversial. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod We already have a separate article for the worship sense which means this is about the “bunch of weirdos” definition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- What is that other article, and where does this article say that? In that case the title should certainly be disambiguated. But in any case, the different meanings of the word should be explained (as they are in the definitions section). Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod It is in the first paragraph of the definitions section, Cult (religious practice). I am against explaining it in the lead as it will confuse the scope further. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- In a rather Easter Egg link! I think it should be in the lead, not least because important popular meanings such as cult of personality, cult following etc, really come off the devotional meaning rather than the wierdos one. Not confusing people doesn't seem to be going too well! Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah the link should be changed to be a bit less Easter-egg. And putting it that way, I can understand the rationale behind mentioning it, though I believe it should be kept to a limited degree. We would mention it to make clear it’s distinct - but that is moot as we have no clear definition here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- What can I do to get you to stop using "perceived to be"? It's an ungainly, vague, WP:WEASEL phrase. It is a passive construction. It is bad form. If what you are trying to convey is that "cult" will always be a controversial label that is hard to define, than that should be said clearly at one point in the article, but not repeated every time. We can't use wikivoice to say "there is no such thing as a cult, only a perception of a cult" That would fail NPOV.
- There was a consensus for the following first sentences. Let's go back to this:
- Cult is a term for a group with deviant beliefs and practices, often led by a charismatic leader. The term is controversial and has different meanings in popular culture and academia. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @DolyaIskrina The sources are just as weasley! Many, though not all, speak in terms of perception, of what outside sources deem as such, in their definitions. Since we are accurately conveying what they say it is not a weasel word. This is an article on a label as much as it is on a thing; that would only fail NPOV if that is not what the sources say, and plenty of them do deny that is a cult is a thing yes. That is the whole problem! And that definition has been criticized by others in this thread and does not match up with the sources. But again... little agreement. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Let's go back to the definition that had consensus before and has none of the discussed problems.
- Cult is a term for a group with deviant beliefs and practices, often led by a charismatic leader. The term is controversial and has different meanings in popular culture and academia. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I understand cutting the perceived by bit but I don't think this is an ideal solution because it misses a lot of the aspects of the term. Not great for a lead sentence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty happy with your latest version. Thanks for accommodating my concerns! DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I understand cutting the perceived by bit but I don't think this is an ideal solution because it misses a lot of the aspects of the term. Not great for a lead sentence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- @DolyaIskrina The sources are just as weasley! Many, though not all, speak in terms of perception, of what outside sources deem as such, in their definitions. Since we are accurately conveying what they say it is not a weasel word. This is an article on a label as much as it is on a thing; that would only fail NPOV if that is not what the sources say, and plenty of them do deny that is a cult is a thing yes. That is the whole problem! And that definition has been criticized by others in this thread and does not match up with the sources. But again... little agreement. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah the link should be changed to be a bit less Easter-egg. And putting it that way, I can understand the rationale behind mentioning it, though I believe it should be kept to a limited degree. We would mention it to make clear it’s distinct - but that is moot as we have no clear definition here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- In a rather Easter Egg link! I think it should be in the lead, not least because important popular meanings such as cult of personality, cult following etc, really come off the devotional meaning rather than the wierdos one. Not confusing people doesn't seem to be going too well! Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod It is in the first paragraph of the definitions section, Cult (religious practice). I am against explaining it in the lead as it will confuse the scope further. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- What is that other article, and where does this article say that? In that case the title should certainly be disambiguated. But in any case, the different meanings of the word should be explained (as they are in the definitions section). Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod We already have a separate article for the worship sense which means this is about the “bunch of weirdos” definition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think "blindly following" is closer than "high control" (though high control should be in the article somewhere). Also, the article was radically altered in late September by you. I'm not even going to look if my version (of concept) used to be in the body. The alterations were so expansive that I quit checking the diffs. Today's edit caught my attention because it removed the first sentence which was a "what is". ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Reorg suggestion
@PARAKANYAA: I have a suggestion for a simple reorganization that might solve this issue. Since the various factions are still debating the term (right here), perhaps this article should be more of a super-disambiguation article (WP:Summary style), and less about the weirdo def (which it probably was originally, by default). Start off with a very brief list of types of usage of "cult" (common conceptions, new religion, old religious, high control, destructive, doomsday, political, imperial, etc.), then use the rest of the article as-is (definition, scholarly, types, anti-cult, govs).
For example, a new lead might go something like this: "Cult is a term used in many ways. For example, meaning a destructive group, or a high-control group, or worship of a religious icon, or...blah blah blah. The use of cult in a derogatory sense is objected to by the anti-cult movement. Scholars disagree about something something. Some governments consider blah blah."
The types section would give broader summaries than the lead (as it already does), but you should include EACH of the different types of cults. Some are missing or have been folded into other sections; maybe they should be distinctly listed. Of course the "types" would include high-control or weird new religion or common misconception, and they each become one of the types, not a remnant-default of the article.
With this endless debate about how to present the lead, maybe it would calm the contention by making this article about all cults, not by default about the common man's idea of cult = weirdo group, and not one single type as the primary or default. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- As I was drafting the above, you were making changes to the article. They're looking good, and seems like we're onto a similar idea. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- This would be making it more about the term or word, if I understand you correctly. The current state of this article is so unsatisfactory I fail to see how it could be worse as long as we're not doing... this. At some point when an article subject is as confused as this one is, it as a result becomes more about the term, so maybe doing something like what you suggest would be okay. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, all the argumentation is about "which definition of 'cult' is the predominant/primary/most-important one". If you look at disambiguation pages, list-articles, and WP:Summary style, you'll see a commonality. They are about covering multifaceted topics under the same, or similar, titles. If we demote the common definition of 'cult' to be just one of many types of cults, then perhaps the argumentation will fall away. And then people can focus more on improving the content and sources of their preferred type of cult topic. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- C-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- C-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- Psychology articles needing attention
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class horror articles
- Mid-importance horror articles
- WikiProject Horror articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- Sociology articles needing attention
- C-Class Religion articles
- High-importance Religion articles
- C-Class New religious movements articles
- Top-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- Religion articles needing attention
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class Scientology articles
- Low-importance Scientology articles
- WikiProject Scientology articles