| Revision as of 18:51, 6 December 2004 editAndries (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers27,090 edits →Edits by Zappaz← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:57, 28 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,857 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 ] == | |||
| 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) | |||
| ==Cult checklists== | |||
| : {{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= | |||
| (moved from ]) | |||
| <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> | |||
| You wrote: | |||
| <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> | |||
| :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 | |||
| <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> | |||
| 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. | |||
| <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> | |||
| 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. | |||
| == National values == | |||
| 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: | |||
| List five causes of cultism ] (]) 11:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ==If this is a controversial term, then label it as such== | |||
| Want to help with this? --] 19:11, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :''"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 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) | |||
| ::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 do keep an eye on the article and will probably weigh in at some point. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::LOL. Which article, ] or ]? I've been in both, er, I mean, well, you know... --] 21:39, 30 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 === | |||
| ::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 | |||
| {{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). | |||
| :::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) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ==Meaningless paragraph== | |||
| : 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :: 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) | |||
| ==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) | |||
| ==Axiomatic statement reverted by ]== | |||
| My statement: ''"Uncritical acceptance of any party line and unthinking obedience to any leader is a danger to a democracy, no matter how respectable or established the cult."'' is an axiomatic statement derived from the understood connotations of democracy, critical thought, and cult. There seems to be a continuing confusion about cult, linking it to number of members. Perhaps the confusion is essential to some agenda I'm unaware of. Andries challenges me to "find a quote" to justify this obvious statement. What does the neutral reader think?] 00:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Neutral readers with regards to cults? Let me know if you found one. :) ] 00:55, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Note to Wetman. The founding fathers of American democracy did not agree with you (see ]). They explicitly allowed for citizens to '''retain''' uncritical acceptance and obedience to religions. Our readers would be interested to know of a source which agrees with your 'axiomatic' statement. ] ] 14:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| What this entry needs is a report on '''cult''' as analyzed by ]'s ''The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark'' --not an amateur's suggestion that the US Constitution authorizes the suppression of information as a religious prerogative. Let us ''discuss'' cult at Misplaced Pages, not ''demonstrate'' its effects. ] 21:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :I glanced at the book and saw that I discusses ] and ]. Yes, this is a subject that is missing in the cult article. In some NRMs these experiences reinforce the belief systems. ] 22:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Nothing in US law requires any person, when discussing his religion, to mention any particular aspect of it. When evangelizing, for example, a missionary is free to present his religion any way he chooses. "Come join us, and you'll have no more troubles!" is not considered ], even if you'd like it to be. Because ] is not protected by the ] in the same way that religious speech is. | |||
| Now, if you'd like to add something to the article about '''advocacy''' to change these laws in the US, or about laws in other countries, please do so. I know that there are countries with atheism as an official ideology, which suppress and/or regulate religious speech (China springs to mind, but it's not the only one); likewise, several Islamic countries have severe restrictions on non-Muslims "sharing" their faith. My friend John has the cigarette burns on his body to prove it (ask him about his experiences in our 'ally' ] sometime). ] ] 16:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Legal action before the European Court of Human Rights == | |||
| I'm somehow skeptical about this alleged complaint against the Picard law before the ]. If I'm not mistaken, it is impossible to complain before this court about a law per se; it is only possible to complain against some specific application of the law where some specific person was harmed by some alleged violation of his or her rights. Furthermore, I'm skeptical that, since the alleged action was started, the case shouldn't have been settled. | |||
| It is a customary practice of various pressure groups to claim they will take their matter to litigation or some international court, without much of a case for doing so. We should not be repeating their declarations without some fact checking. | |||
| I'd be inclined to suppress the affirmation that this law is under review by the ECHR until somebody points out to a specific case. | |||
| ] 13:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Read "Religious Freedom and the European Court of Human Rights", by Francois-Henri Briard, France delivered at the International Coalition for Religious Freedom Conference on "Religious Freedom and the New Millenium" in Berlin, Germany, May 29-31, 1998 --] 23:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::I read and it answers neither question: 1) whether it is possible to attack a law per se, or a law after specific actions motivated by the law were undertaken (the latter is the case of the ], for instance) 2) whether the case is still on the court docket (I find it difficult to believe that such a case could be still left unjudged 6 years or so after the law). | |||
| :::Can you point to a ''relevant'' text? ] 07:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| If nobody can point to a serious source establishing that a case against France about the About-Picard law is still pending before ECHR, I'll remove the statement from the text. We do not even have a reference for any lawsuit! ] 22:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :I am looking for a good reference. I believe that the challenge was based on a Article 9, 11 and 14 of the ECHR as follows: --] 22:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::''9.1-Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.'' | |||
| ::''11.1-Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.'' | |||
| ::''14-The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.'' | |||
| ::David, in looking for that reference, I found is this: --] 22:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::*''A petition was submitted to the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly from 40 different religious and human rights groups. (This is a Europe-wide legislative body made up of representatives from 52 European nations for the purpose of ensuring consistent government policy across the continent.) That petition resulted in a Rapporteur (official parliamentary investigator) being appointed to investigate the bill and religious discrimination in France. '' and | |||
| :::* ''Among the groups who have opposed the bill are: The Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Islamic leaders of France, the U.S. Department of State, International Helsinki Federation, Human Rights Without Frontiers, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (which is investigating the bill and religious discrimination in France), the U.S. International House Relations Committee, International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, Omnium Des Libertes (French human rights group) and the Center for the Study of New Religions (CESNUR)'' | |||
| ::Other info: --] 23:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::*''a Commission des Affaires Juridiques du Conseil de l'Europe a nommé un rapporteur pour examiner le projet de loi About-Picard et ses implications au regard de la convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme. Dans une déclaration écrite en date du 26 avril 2001 (déclaration n°321), avant le vote en deuxième lecture à l'assemblée nationale, cinquante parlementaires du Conseil de l'Europe demandaient le report du vote pour permettre aux élus français de prendre connaissance du rapport du Conseil de l'Europe sur cette loi.'' and | |||
| ::* ''La loi About-Picard sur les mouvements sectaires est contraire à la recommandation 1412 du Conseil de l'Europe qui, sur le même sujet, invitait les états membres | |||
| ::**''à ne pas adopter de législation majeure pour les sectes " au motif que celle-ci risquerait de porter atteinte à la liberté de conscience et de religion garantie par l'article 9 de la Convention européenne des Droits de l'Homme ainsi qu'aux religions traditionnelles " | |||
| ::**''" à utiliser les procédures normales du droit pénal et civil contre les pratiques illégales menées au nom de groupes à caractère religieux, ésotérique ou spirituel " | |||
| ::**''" à créer ou à soutenir, si nécessaire, des centres nationaux ou régionaux d'information sur les groupes à caractère religieux, ésotérique ou spirituel qui soient indépendants de l'Etat " | |||
| ::** ''" à encourager une approche des groupes religieux empreinte de compréhension, de tolérance, de dialogue et de résolution des conflits ". | |||
| ::*''Cette recommandation a été adoptée le 22 juin 1999 par l'assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l'Europe. Non seulement la France de l'a pas respectée jusqu'à maintenant, mais encore elle a choisi la voie opposée à celle préconisée. | |||
| :None of this indicates a challenge before the ECHR, which is a ''court''. What is discussed in those references is a referral before the parliamentary assembly of the CoE and a report written by a parliamentary commission of the CoE. Parliamentary resolution of the CoE are indicative. | |||
| :Therefore, unless somebody can point to a real ECHR case, I'll remove the statement. We currently give that there are still cases pending, whereas we do not even have a single shred of evidence that any recourse was ever submitted! ] 07:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Support from the Clinton administration for Scientology and others== | |||
| David, please provide references to your claim about the Church of Scientology seeking support from the US government. It seems to me, yet again, to be an unsubstantiated opinion. --] 16:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :References may be easily obtained from Google! I pasted a number of them. ] 20:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's one: --] 18:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) Also, Congressman ] was a well-known Scientologist who promoted the extensions of copyright laws. | |||
| :Oh, and here's another: Scientology gets a U.S. congressman to write a letter of protest to the government of Sweden regarding the case of ]: --] 01:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::David, first you wrote "support of the US Government", when actually it was a singular Congress resolution and a UN statement warning against the UN charter for freedom of religion. Your thrid reference is an email, hardly substantive. I find your generalizations inapropriate and without basis. Exactly the kind of thing that you opposed when discussing generalization made against France. --] 23:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::I said that these groups ''sought'' the help of the US Government, not implying that they obtained consistent and total support for a long period of time. A statement at the UN, a Congress resolution, and pressures from then SecState Madeleine Albright (see listed articles) are acts of support from the US government. ] 07:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, David. Writing that the "support of the US government" shows a lack of understanding of US politics and governance and assumes a blanket of support for COS that is unwarranted. I am adding some text to clarify this. --] 08:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am well aware of how the US government operates and the important power of pressure groups (lobbyists) and campaign contributors. As I clearly pointed out, they ''sought'' to obtain support, and they did obtain some limited support. | |||
| :::::Of course, this does not imply some consistent and blanket support from the US government; I never claimed that US foreign policy was wholly dictated by the C.O.S, just that it had managed to get some advantages from the Clinton administration. | |||
| :::::I remember reading that Chirac, once, told Madeleine Albright that he would hear no more of it after she had bothered him for the umpteenth time about these alleged persecutions. ] 11:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with Zappaz on this. Fixed the text to explain this issue in a better way. Hope you agree with the edit. ] | |||
| ==I changed the countries into alphabetical order== | |||
| For the rest of the section, I only made a minor change to the "China" sub section. Oh and can somebody help with the ]? They need to be referenced again (references were lost during cut and paste job) and put into context. ] 21:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Germany== | |||
| I remember having seen a government document that gives warnings about cults but now I can not find it anymore so that is why I deleted the remark that Germany gives general warning about cults. ] 22:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fresh start== | |||
| The pre nov_17 version was hopelessly mired in assumptions. I thought it would be best to start fresh. The old versions are in the page history, of course. | |||
| Key points to remember: | |||
| * the word "cult" means "a religion regarded as spurious" - so we must always keep in mind WHO is applying the "cult" label | |||
| * there are two major classifications of "cult": heretical off-shoots of established religions, and those that are totally brand-new | |||
| * there is also the distinction between people who brand a group as a "cult" because '''they disagree with that group's religious teachings''' (i.e., we think they are heretics) -- and people who think the leadership just made the whole thing up to get rich or something | |||
| There is also the whole issue of recruitment techniques. Do any of these labeled groups engage in unusual or unethical methods of attracting, training or retaining members. | |||
| I'm also not sure at all what info belongs in the ] article and what should be in the ] (NRM) article. ] ] 21:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm all for reformatting the article and even doing a fresh re-write if necessary. However, this has not yet been agreed on by the people who've put a substantial amount of work into this article. If you really want to wipe it out and start over, we should go through a Misplaced Pages request for discussion or even vote for deletion. --] 22:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Modemac; wiping even a crappy article raises too many editors' hackles. Rather than RfD or VfD, though, I think this is an excellent place to use a /temp article, to start fresh there and show what can be done as an alternative, while maintaining the reassuring status quo with the current "online" article. Worked for ] and ]. --] 22:38, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I bow to the majority. Let's put my version into ]. ] ] 00:09, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Ed, please keep or expand the references in the temp version, (which are not assumptions). It took me and other people quite a lot of effort to collect them and removing them makes the article worse. Oh, and we also need a section cults and media. We wrote together one, remember but I was quite new to Misplaced Pages at that time and the section was removed because it was unreferenced. Thanks ] 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| oh, and another thing. We do not need (opposing) opinions in this article or the NRM article but we want facts so I hope that someone can go to a university library and study the relevant articles based on empirical research there. If you need a list of relevant articles then let me know. ] 02:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Indeed. I think that there are basically four different sets of reasons why certain groups are branded "cults": | |||
| # established religions consider them as illegitimate off-shoots, or only consider as legitimate religions a limited list | |||
| # the organization, the actions of the "cult" organization (leadership that apparently enriches itself from the faithful, prescription of dangerous activities etc.) | |||
| # anticlericalism (people who may otherwise adopt a more conciliatory tone with respect to established religion may be harsher when it comes to smaller movements) | |||
| # traditionalism and conformism. | |||
| It is very important to distinguish these various reasons because various groups of people and governments have different reasons from opposing "cults". All too often, anti-cult activity is described as conformism and theological opposition and intolerance from established religion (1 and 4), whereas it comes from 2. Conversely, anti-cult activities may pretend to be motivated by 2, whereas they are motivated by 3, 4 or even 1. | |||
| ] 10:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :David, good analysis. Please read ] | |||
| It's also necessary to mention the dispute over the label "cult" itself, and that's where a lot of the problems with this article originate. A few things are worth mentioning about this: | |||
| # Very few groups willingly accept the label "cult," and most will vigorously deny such a term -- even when a large number of different, unrelated outside sources use that term to describe them. | |||
| # Much of the blathering over "what is a cult?" is tailored in such a fashion that such-and-such a group is *not* described as a cult. I.E. "It's possible to define Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as cults, and it's just as unfair to label them as cults as it is to label ''our'' group." | |||
| # In a similar fashion, a number of groups put a great emphasis on the suggestion that anti-cult groups are working round the clock to destroy them. This is suggested in this very article, with its mentioning of the "evil anti-cult conspiracy and its agenda to destroy poor, innocent, persecuted new religious movements." (I'm obviously paraphrasing here, to describe what I think is implied and suggested in many of the definitions of "cult groups" and "anti-cult groups." --] 12:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you, David, Modemac and Andries for your comments. All were constructive and beneficial. | |||
| David, I had completely forgotten the "2 for" thing: motivation which is really pretense. (I've been "assuming good faith" for so long here at Misplaced Pages that I may perhaps be excused for this lapse ;-) | |||
| Nearly 30 years ago, Rev. Moon said: | |||
| :The Christian churches are fearful. They feel their establishment will be taken over, their land and structures may be taken over; their young people may become members of the Unification Church. So, in fear of losing their young people they are very defensive. In order to defend themselves, the best thing, as has always been the case throughout history, is to '''paint the worst possible picture of their opponent's doctrine and method of operation.''' (emphasis added for Misplaced Pages talk) | |||
| Also, there is evidence (or at least suspicion) that some "]s" may be motivated by something other than a sincere belief that they are rescuing hapless victims from sophisticated purveyors of ]. | |||
| Andries, of course I'll keep all your references; you worked hard to find them. I'd like to read some more of the articles you have found. | |||
| Modemac, the labelling issue is indeed tricky. Please help me to work on that; I'm not sure I have enough objectivity here, since I object to accusations that ] is "spurious". I will try to remember to "write for the enemy", and as always on this issue I will continue to seek counsel from other contributors to make sure I don't lapse into one-sided condemnation of those, er, uh, ... hmm, my keyboard seems to be preventing me from typing anything insulting today.... ] ] 14:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Ed, before I get accused again of taking credits for things I did not do, the vast majority of the references were collected by other contributors. ] | |||
| =="Sect" and "Cult"== | |||
| These quite separate terms are hopelessly entangled (not accidentally) at Misplaced Pages, where cult even has two competing articles: ] and ], as if to suggest there were a '''non'''-destructive kind of cult, in this sense of the term. Newness and size have nothing to do with whether a religious group or "sect" is a cult or not. Cult is identified by an unhealthy relation between an individual and a sect, in which the individual is socially and psychologically manipulated, not for the individual's good. No authoritarian religion is wholly free from "cult" in this modern sense. In the cultural atmosphere of Misplaced Pages, no frank article on cult is possible. --] 17:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Will all due respect, Wetman, your distinction regarding "individual is socially and psychologically manipulated, not for the individual's good" assumes several misconceptions: | |||
| :#that individuals do not have the power of distiction and the ability to make choices | |||
| :#that you (or anyone for that matter) can judge what is an "good for an individual" | |||
| ::''Has anyone ever followed the phrase "with all due respect" with any authentic respect? Precisely when individuals have lost the power of distinction and the ability to make rational choices in their own best interests, we detect the effects of cult. We judge what is good for an individual dispassionately all the time, based on the individual's health and actions.'' | |||
| :Both these assertions are the foundation of the anti-cult movement, a strange stage in which the nuveau left and the far-right in the form of the established religions together with a group of self-appointed "experts" dance hand in hand. | |||
| ::''Note the shift to direct attention to the labels.'' | |||
| :I agree that there are groups that are destructive in nature (regarding which these groups are), but to bunch these groups with others that promote peace, understanding and human dignity, is fallacious and carrying an agenda that is '''very''' transparent: intolerance. ] 17:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Notice that the avowed aims of cults have actually been meticulously avoided in the Wetman definition.'' (''notes by ] 16:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)) | |||
| ::Jossi, of course people sometimes do not have the power to make good choices. Look how the German people voted for Hitler in 1932 due to his propaganda and manipulation. And millions of people were or are still followers (incl. me and the former prime minister of India) of the criminal, charlatan guru ] who preaches peace and non-violence. This has harmed me. And the anti-cult movement does not say what is good for the individual. It only says that some movements are bad. And by the way the anti cult movement consists of ex-members of cults too. ] 18:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, I dunno, I think we could all agree that the mass murder/suicide at ] and the similar mass suicide at ] represent things that are not "good for an individual". You seem to be suggesting that up until the moment that the poison is actually swallowed (or forcibly administered, as at Jonestown) that no one else from the outside can possibly judge that the individual is on a dangerous course. | |||
| ::As for individuals having the power of distinction and the ability to make choices, of course individuals have that power and ability. However, they can also be deprived of that power and ability; if this were not the case, no cult would have the least reason to fear deprogrammers, since by definition a deprogrammer could never make an individual choose to leave a cult. Individuals can be deprived of the ability to make the best decisions for themselves by something as simple as restricting their access to information, or through social pressure. This is why, when a group declares to its members that it is spiritually or even physically harmful to read anything that portrays the group in a negative light, when members are ordered to disconnect from non-members of the group so that the social pressure on them will only come from group members, that group appears to be a cult, unlike other groups whose doctrine might be similar in all other respects. -- ] 18:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course, of course. What I mean is that there are certain people that will use the Jonestown case and other destructive groups to cast a shadow over any group that is not mainstream. Read the anti-cult literature and you will see what I mean... anything that is not a mainstream religion or belief gets bunched together under "cult" or "sect", often in a peyorative manner. Look at the list of "purported cutls" here at WP... That is the point I am trying to make. | |||
| :::As for Andries' reference to nazi Germany, to say that all that was just because of propagand and manipulation is a reduccionist interpretation. It scares the heck out of me to think the ramifications of Andries' statement "people sometimes do not have the power to make good choices". ] 19:35, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Jossi, I do not know what you mean with a reductionist interpretation. Sometimes we have to face the historical and documented facts even if they are scary and painful. And believe me, they are scary and painful for me too. ] 20:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, Jossi, that's exactly what I don't see when I read "the anti-cult literature". It's what I often ''hear'' from people who are critical of the anti-cult movement; I hear that the anti-cult movement is full of uncritical bigotry, full of narrow minds who lump everything that isn't mainstream together under the pejorative label of "cult". However, it doesn't match my experience actually ''reading'' the anti-cult literature -- which a lot of the people criticizing its mistakes and announcing what it contains ''won't do'', because it's forbidden or ''entheta'' to them. What I see when I read the anti-cult literature is exactly the opposite of what I'm assured I'll find there; instead of lumping everything together without examination under the label of "cult", there is examination of just ''what'' the criteria are that distinguish a 'sect' or a 'new religious movement' from a 'cult', and even a growing distinction being made between 'cult' and 'destructive cult'. | |||
| ::::If the anti-cult movement was as it is portrayed by its enemies, then why isn't the anti-cult literature filled with attacks on the ]? You assure me in good faith that anything that is not mainstream gets attacked in the anti-cult literature, but the Free Zone surely isn't mainstream; it's not even the mainstream of its own diversion from mainstream belief. According to your logic, anti-cult activists should be mounting just as many diatribes against the Free Zone as they do against the Church of Scientology: the Free Zone uses Hubbard's auditing, and Hubbard's Study Technology, so if it was being "non-mainstream" that made the anti-cult movement critically of you, then logically the loudest condemnations of the Free Zone should be coming from the anti-cult movement... instead of from Scientology, which casts itself as a defender of religious tolerance. -- ] 21:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I do not know enough about Scientology to comment on the abve, sorry. ] 22:33, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The generalizations I refer to in the section below, includes these made by Antaeus: a lumping of all the sociologists, de-programmers, evangelists and others into something referred to as "the anti-cult" movement. --] 23:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Zappaz, I agree with you about the complexity of the issue and I think it is more accurate to use the expression ''active opponents of cults, sometimes lumped together under the term anti-cult movement''. ] 08:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Just to clarify, I wasn't proposing that we use the term "anti-cult movement" in the article without qualifiers. I just think it's a term we can use here in discussion to represent the wide variety of voices who ''do'' get classified by that label, with the occasional reminder that the existence of the term does not mean the truth of the stereotype. -- ] 15:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, that's true; just as it's possible for people to overgeneralize about cults, lumping together "any group that is not mainstream" and judging them all by the worst examples, it's certainly the case that many people have turned around and generalized every voice that has uttered caution on new religious movements or disapproval of such into one big amorphous entity called "the anti-cult movement", and judged them by the worst examples that can be found (and sometimes, it must be said, not even by the correct facts about those examples, but by wild fantasized rumors about them instead.) | |||
| ::::::But what is notable is that to a large extent, it is ''those specific people'' being held up as examples of the worst of "the anti-cult movement" who are the ones drawing distinctions between "new religious movements" and "cults", and between "cults" and "destructive cults." If you believed what you hear about ] from those who call him emblematic of that elusive, amorphous "anti-cult movement", you would think he was a raving bigoted enemy of all non-mainstream religions, an agent of the Inquisition who loves nothing more than to stomp on religious tolerance. One would never suspect that what you'd find instead in is the caution that not all religious movements are cults, not all non-mainstream beliefs are cults, and that even those groups that qualify as cults are not always unsafe or destructive cults. | |||
| ::::::To quote Jossi, who I think is correct on this point, "to bunch <nowiki></nowiki> groups with others that promote peace, understanding and human dignity, is fallacious<nowiki></nowiki>" We should therefore be concentrating our efforts on those definitions which attempt the most ] about just what criteria separate destructive groups from groups that are not destructive, cultic groups from groups that are not cultic. Since there will inevitably be disagreements about whether these definitions are ], we can then cover the debates about accuracy in the article itself. But we should not abandon that attempt by announcing beforehand that an NPOV is not possible, and we should not commit the ] of declaring certain definitions invalid because they come from people in that "anti-cult movement." -- ] 17:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Antaeus, I think Jossi is inaccurate. My former movement claimed to promote peace, understanding and human dignity but it had some very serious corpses in the coffin. How do you know that a group really promotes peace, understanding and human dignity and that these words are sincere and not a front for financial or sexual exploitation of followers? The worst of all, Jim Jones' people's temple promoted racial equality and did a lot of social work. Looks can be very deceiving. As the saying goes, even the devil can quote scriptures. ] 23:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well, I think Jossi's words are still accurate; we simply need to keep cognizant that the groups which really ''do'' promote peace, understanding and human dignity are not always the ones who ''claim'' most loudly that they promote peace, understanding and human dignity. I think we all acknowledge at the very least the possibility of destructive groups such as the People's Temple, and since no group, even the most destructive, wants to look like a destructive group, a destructive group will stress instead the good things that they do. And to give them credit, they ''may actually'' be sincere about those ideals, and may even be doing good in some of those areas -- but it doesn't stop the fact that they are also doing ''harm''. I think this has brought up an important point: good intentions and the presence of good acts are ''not'' a disproof of cult status or destructive cult status. -- ] 00:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Just a side answer: the law in most jurisdictions already recognizes the fact that adults may not be in a mental state suitable for making sound and informed judgment. For instance, the law usually provides for adult whose judgment is durably altered to be put under judicial or familial supervisions. Similarly, it is often a crime to abuse the confidence of some vulnerable people, especially the elderly (there are people who specialize in abusing elderly people). ] 08:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :My distinction between "sect" and "cult" makes no reference to what the cult professes ("world peace" or whatever), only to its relations with its individual members. Just as we cannot assess private piety, only public actions, we can assess this relation simply by its results: people unable to exit the group, children maimed or killed, buildings burned down, etc. Jossi has been taught that ''everyone'' remains free to make choices: psychologists would not agree. Editors who fear they are cult victims will quickly switch attention to particular examples, where we may all argue indefinitely: examples are invidious and should be kept out of the entry ]. The other technique is to characterize others as "anti-cult" self-appointed "experts" etc. These labels and false logic are familiar aspects of cult indoctrination. | |||
| :But can we return to the definition and see whether we can expand it and improve it, for the Misplaced Pages entry? | |||
| ::"Newness and size have nothing to do with whether a religious group or "sect" is a cult or not. Cult is identified by an unhealthy relation between an individual and a sect, in which the individual is socially and psychologically manipulated, not for the individual's good. No authoritarian religion is wholly free from "cult" in this modern sense." --] 16:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Competing definitions of "cult" == | |||
| According to T. Robbins on his ""The Sociology of Contemporary Religious Movements" there are three competing definitions of "cult", as follows: | |||
| #'''The media and popular demonology use of "cult" ''''to refer to authoritarian and totalistic movements that "psychologically imprison" converts and that ought to be controlled; | |||
| #'''Some Sociologists''' using the term "cult" in a manner almost antithetical to the popular pejoritive usage. Whereas "sects" have traditionally been viewed as being relatively intolerant, authoritarian, and close-knit, the term "cult" is now being used by many sociologists to refer to putatively ephemeral groups that lack clear group boundaries, centralized leadership, and standardized dogma, and that make minimal demands on devotees, whose degree of commitment may be highly variable; and | |||
| #'''Other Sociologists''' have developed an explicitly substantive concept of a cult as a group that makes a radical break with the dominant religious tradition in the society. In contrast, a sect is a subdivision of the dominant tradition, e.g. a Christian sect in America or a Hindu sect in India. The Hare Krishna would thus be an American cult rather than a Hindu sect. | |||
| He further argues that ''...the ultimate sociological significance of the present spiritual ferment cannot be assessed without additional information regarding the long term social adjustment and attitudinal and personality transformations of converts, as well as the evolution and institutionalization of current groups.'' | |||
| IMO, any attempts to make generalizations as the ones proposed in this WP article are inherently invalid due to the complexity of the issue at hand. --] 20:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Social psychology of religion== | |||
| I appreciate Wetman's critique of the terminology: | |||
| :Cult is identified by an unhealthy relation between an individual and a sect, in which the individual is socially and psychologically manipulated, not for the individual's good. | |||
| To what extent do religions, denominations and sects exploit and manipulate their members? This is a question that transcends the size or age of a religious group. It can also be approached from different perspectives: | |||
| * materialistic + mental health perspective (there is no God or afterlife, so it's all bogus anyway) | |||
| * competitive perspective (that other group are all heretics) | |||
| * "We only disagree with their methods, not their theology." | |||
| I don't think we can write an accurate and '''unbiased''' article on "]" without FIRST identifying the perspectives from which people are condemning various religions as "spurious". | |||
| Moreover, NOBODY has created a definition, test or checklist which objectively distinguishes between a "real church" and a "fake" one. There is tremendous infighting between denominations of Christianity, not to mention between branches of Islam. And several Christian groups have called Buddhism or Islam on Hinduisms "cults" or "false religions". It's a mess. | |||
| One simple but tedious approach is to list every group which has been branded a "cult" -- along with the group or individual doing the branding. We might make a chart, with the branders along one axis and the branded down the other. ] ] 15:55, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Cooperative editing== | |||
| I've carefully read everybody's comments, and even though clearly there's a lot of disagreement I feel that everyone is sincere and honest, not to mention exceptionally well-informed. There are various points being emphasized, as well as different points of view espoused. | |||
| Jossi and I like our "cults", while Andries despises his (former) one. David and Zappaz and Antaeus and Gary bring a more detached but perhaps better-focused perspective. | |||
| I have a good feeling about prospects for ] on the new version. Have a good weekend, everybody! ] ] 19:50, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your vote of confidence. As it turns out, I don't have a particular dog in this fight. I'm happy to chip in with style editing upon request, but otherwise this broth seems to have a healthy number of cooks already. --] 21:59, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I finally read (most of) Eileen Barker's "Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups". And I respect her scholarship for two reasons. First, I've read some of her previous material; it's all research-based, with facts and figures. Second, she's associated with David Bromley, whose work I also respect. | |||
| Here are her "ideal types": | |||
| * cult-awareness groups (CAGs) | |||
| * counter-cult groups (CCGs) | |||
| * research-oriented groups (ROGs) | |||
| * human-rights groups (HRGs) | |||
| * cult-defender groups (CDGs) | |||
| They fit neatly into a spectrum, although unsophisticated journalism or advocacy tends to focus on the sparks flying between the anti-cult CAGs and cult-defender groups (CDGs). Like Rick Ross and Steve Hassan heroically rescuing hapless victims vs. "cult apologists" justifying mind control. | |||
| I enjoy reading ROG literature the most. HRG is boring for me, because I'm already convinced that people have a right to choose their religion (and I've made my choice). CDGs don't have much information that's relevant to creating an encyclopedia article. | |||
| That leaves two. First, the theologically minded ] groups who criticize heretical sects and ]s. Best way to handle them (for Misplaced Pages purposes) is to describe as clearly as possible WHY they disagree theologically with other religions. If Falwell calls all of Islam or Buddhism a "cult", it's probably because they don't accept ] as their "personal Lord and Savior"; he's not disputing that they are sincerely religious, though -- just hapless misguided heretics or heathens. And some established Christian groups have rejected the ] for teaching (1) that Jesus is not God Himself and (2) that the Messiah will come again as a "man born upon the earth". | |||
| Second, the anti-cult groups which have other than theological objections. | |||
| This gives me an idea for "framing" this series of ] articles. Using Barker's 5 types, we could focus on '''opposition''' to "cults" rather than trying to write one article on '''what a cult is'''. | |||
| * ] is the place for all accusations that a given teaching or group is theologically unsound. | |||
| * ] is the place for attitudes, assumptions, objections and activities of those who go around calling various NRMs "cults" for non-theological reasons. | |||
| The latter article could conceivably incorporate the ] sidebare article. | |||
| It would focus on various counter-cult people and organizations and say WHY they regard various particularly groups as "spurious" (i.e., a ]). Like Steve Hassan says "Moonies are a cult" because: | |||
| * they use ] - describe his theory, and any evidence (if any) which he gives that they '''engage in''' the practices he says will result in mind control. It might also be interesting to contrast Hassan's POV with surveys or theories by ROGs -- including Barker herself. ] and UC official ] independently agree that over 90% of recruits left of their own free will within 2 years of "moving in" as full-time members. | |||
| * they just exist for Moon's aggrandizement; i.e., he's getting rich and powerful at their expense, and gives them nothing good in return. We could explore this POV, too. Is it just opinion, or what? How do current and former members feel about this topic? Is their any correlation between a one's attitude toward the ] and the '''way''' one leaves it? (Barker, AFAIK, says that victims of involuntary ] are much more likely to have a negative outlook toward the group than those who simply dropped out on their own.) | |||
| ==Edits by Zappaz== | |||
| #I removed the review by Anthony Campbell of Barrett's book for two reasons | |||
| ##the article already contained a statement that Barret considered the cult label meaning less. I retained some of your edits though i.e. "subjective and negative. (I emailed Campbell some years ago about Barrett's book by the way) ] 22:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ##Book reviews can not serve as scholarly sources ] 22:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #You removed a paragraph that you thought was original research. It was not. And the normal, prescribed procedure is to first to ask for references and if they do not come within in a week then to delete it.~ ] 22:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::What was there originally was written as an unsubstantiated opinion. Thanks for re-writing it. | |||
| ::* I regret that you have chosen to delete the critique of Barret by Cambell, as I see his POV to be prevalent amongst people supportive of new religions (or as anti-cultists call them ''"apologists"''). I will find a scholarly reference that support that very prevalent POV, to replace Campbell's. | |||
| ::*The "normal procedure" is to add references in the first place. | |||
| ::*In regard to the extensive and carefully extracted quotations from Moyers' paper, I see this as quite inappropriate for a WP article. I have read many of your comments in which you yourself do not support the extensive use of quotes to support a POV. I would suggest a short quote and a summary of the paper's points in one or two well written paragraphs. Otherwise I could present 4 or 5 articles that speak to the contrary, quote as profusely as you do and end up with a worthless article in no time. --] 23:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::BTW, who is this Jim Moyers? The URL you provide is his own personal website. I never heard of him and I have not seen anyone citing him or this paper. --] 23:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, it is true, I do not like extensive quotes in an article. But this was an emergency solution because of your immediate deletion of my alleged original research. What Campbell wrote is now in the article twice (skeptics and Barret) though in slightly different wording and should not be repeated yet a third time. ] 23:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::And half of the articles in Misplaced Pages contain hardly any references. ] 23:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks about pointing out the quote from Campbell, I may have missed it. But you still do not adress my question about Jim Moyers, neither you address my suggestion to reduce extensive quotation from that aricle. --] 23:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Removed quote. I have one more problem with what you wrote in the section "doomsday myth", you wrote "used as evidence" Who uses this evidence? ] 23:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks. I attempted to rewrite that sentence. --] 00:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Zappaz, it remains an unattributed opinion. Who saw this as evidence? ] 00:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Anyone that knows arithmetics... :) --] | |||
| :::::::::Zappaz, let's assume for a moment that your figures are correct, just for the sake of argument. Are you actually arguing in good faith that: | |||
| ::::::::::tens of thousands<sup>10</sup> (exactly what does this figure mean?) of NRMs, minus: | |||
| ::::::::::ten doomsday cults, equals: | |||
| ::::::::::proof of an anti-cult movement manipulating the public perception of cults? | |||
| :::::::::Even if these two figures were better sourced; even if the difference between the figures alone were to prove that public perception on the subject is badly distorted; to leap from that conclusion to announcing "this is evidence of who it is doing the distorting" is just unfounded. -- ] 01:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Andries, your ''According to Barrett the most common accusation made against "cults" is sexual abuse'' is largely innapropriate as in the US just this week the Catholic Church ageed to pay $100 million to victims of sexual abuse by their priests. That is '''pervasive''' abuse IMOs. | |||
| I possible, could you give me the name of the book or article in which Barrett makes that assertion? Thanks.--] 01:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Zappaz, Barrett's ''The New Believers''. I can't find the page nr. anymore. He is right, sexual abuse is very common due to the excessive power/charismatic authority that the leaders have. ] 09:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Um, so? This is relevant ''how''? That's the '']'' fallacy, Zappaz. Pointing out another institution against which the accusations are levelled doesn't make it "largely inappropriate" to discussion any other accusations. -- ] 01:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello Antaeus. Finding ourselves again at opposite ends... omg...! I agree with you about my fallacy. I was just making the point that so much time and effort is made to find "inappropriateness" in NRMs, when so much disgraceful attitudes and actions are pervasive in established religions. Concerning the number game above, yes I truly believe that there is a distorted image of emerging religions based on the unfortunate and devastating actions of a few destructive cults. I and I am not alone in that view. --] 02:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Zappaz, I agree that some anti-cultists have exaggerated the danger but the harm has been underestimated in some cases too. | |||
| :::"''It is perhaps surprising that Sai Baba attracts so little attention from anti-cult organisations, since the movement possesses a considerable number of characteristics that are associated with the notion of ‘cult’ in its sociological senses. (…) ]’s relative immunity from criticism has no doubt been due in part to the fact that (…) Sai Baba has never been involved in any sexual or financial scandal, but has lived true to his teachings.''" George Chryssides in Exploring New Religions 1999:179-192, | |||
| ::This refers to India's ''most popular'' Godman that has become an absolute horror story for me and many other followers in the year 2000. Read some testimonies of young men who were sexually abused by him. This is different from just a pedophile priest. This is Jesus who turned out to be a pedophile. ] 08:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is pretty bad Andries if true, Andries. Many people in postion of power have taken advantage of helpless children ... see the horrendous stories coming out of the closet in the USA with Catholic priests. Repugnant stuff. But to go ahead and make a blanket assumption that "if my guru was a pedophile, then all gurus and religious leaders are pedophiles" (or at least suspicious of that) is in my view, very innapropriate. It is the same rational used by ani-cultists: "all emerging religions are bad and their leaders, suspect". That, in my view is called intolerance (to use a kinder word...) --] 15:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Zappaz, Barrett wrote that SSB is not an isolated case of a guru who sexually abuses his followers and hence I strongly oppose gullibility and naivite with regards to NRMs. As, I said, I believe that there are structural reasons for this i.e. the power structure with a guru on top who has all power due to his ] without checks and balances. I am aware that SSB and my experience in his movement is an unusually unfortunate example of what can go wrong with gurus and NRMs and that in most cases it is not that bad. I disagree with what you wrote on your talk page i.e. that testimonies of apostates are unreliable because they are too emotional. I and others have written with a lot of restraint here about SSB in Misplaced Pages and elsewhere and hence the allegation that testimonies by apostates are unreliable is at least inaccurate and an unjustified generalization. For example, apostate ex-followers have written , some of which were part of a university course. ] 18:21, 6 Dec 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